Per Curiam
Labagh appealed a judgment of conviction for second degree criminal contempt following a non-jury trial. He argued the information charging him was jurisdictionally defective as it failed to contain non-hearsay allegations that there was an order of protection in effect at the time of the alleged incident, and also failed to allege he had knowledge of the order. The panel found such assertion was belied by the facts as Labagh was present in court when the order was issued and he was informed by the court of its issuance. Thus, it found the information charging Labagh with criminal contempt was not jurisdictionally defective. Further, the panel stated evidence was legally sufficient to establish Labagh's guilt of second degree criminal contempt. Yet, it also stated the judgment convicting Labagh of criminal contempt must be reversed as his waiver of a jury trial with respect to it was ineffective. The panel found the purported waiver was invalid as Labagh executed it after prosecutors rested, and the Justice Court did not advise him of his absolute right to a mistrial or a trial before a jury, nor did the court warn Labagh of the consequences of his waiver. Hence, a new trial was ordered on the criminal contempt charge.
