Defendant appeals from conviction for failure to appear for trial on a felony indictment after being released on his own recognizance pursuant to ORS 140.710 to 140.750. Such failure is made a crime by ORS 162.450. ①

The only assignment of error worthy of note is elementary in nature, but apparently of first impression. Defendant demanded to be tried by the court. The court, noting that its personal explanation of defendant’s right to a jury trial “never did get through to the defendant,” denied the demand and required that the trial be by jury. Such denial is the basis of the claimed error.

Oregon Constitution, Art I, § 11, provides that the defendant shall have a right to a public jury trial, but that an “accused person, in other than capital eases, and with the consent of the trial judge, may elect to waive * * *” jury trial. (Emphasis supplied.)

This language clearly supports the trial judge’s *377 decision, bnt defendant argues to the contrary, asserting the “interests” of the accused require that he have alternative choices as to the fact finder. We must read the constitution as it is, not as defendant feels his interests indicate it should be.

There is nothing in the United States Constitution which is inconsistent with the Oregon constitutional provision from which we have quoted. In Singer v. United States, 380 US 24, 85 S Ct 783, 13 L Ed 2d 630 (1965), the court said:

“* * * A defendant’s only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. We find no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the * * * trial judge * # 380 US at 36.

Affirmed.