attorney, alone, waived a jury trial); Tucker, 559 So.2d at 220 (“District courts have properly reversed convictions when the record contained no written waiver of a jury trial and the trial court failed to inquire into the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial or conducted an insufficient inquiry.” (citing Shuler v. State, 463 So.2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Tosta v. State, 352 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977))). Courts in other jurisdictions have also described the denial of the right to a jury trial as structural error. See, e.g., Miller v. Dormire, 310 F.3d 600, 604 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding that the defendant’s attorney’s waiver of a jury trial was structural error requiring automatic reversal of the defendant’s conviction); State v. Baker, 217 Ariz. 118, 170 P.3d 727, 731 (Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>); People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297, 109
holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail 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 lower courts misunderstood the requirement for finding a valid waiver of the right to counsel where neither the trial court nor the arizona supreme court undertook to focus on whether edwards understood his right to counsel and intelligently and knowingly relinquished it