is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent when no evidence indicates that he was aware of a state statute requiring the court to impose a life sentence if the sentencing jury failed to reach a unanimous decision. The California statute at issue here provides that “[i]f the trier of fact [at the sentencing stage] is a jury and has been unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to what the penalty shall be, the court shall dismiss the jury and impose a punishment of confinement in state prison for life without possibility of parole.” 1977 Cal. Stats., ch. 316, §12. State high courts faced with the issue whether a defendant must be aware of similar capital sentencing provisions have reached differing conclusions. Compare Harris v. State, 295 Md. 329, 339-340, 455 A. 2d 979, 984 (1983) (<HOLDING>), with People v. Morgan, 112 Ill. 2d 111,
holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding prelitigation waiver of jury trial must be made knowingly and voluntarily and courts will indulge in every reasonable presumption against a waiver of that right holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case holding that where the record showed neither that the trial court explained to the defendant his right to a jury trial nor an effective waiver of the right structural error occurred holding that a court must explain the effect of a jury deadlock for a waiver to be effective