Calana-Reinoso v. State
| Decision Date | 22 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D18-2114,3D18-2114 |
| Citation | 306 So.3d 980 |
| Parties | Brenda CALANA-REINOSO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of Aubrey Webb, P.A., and Aubrey Q. Webb, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.
Brenda Calana-Reinoso appeals from an order revoking her community control, and sentencing her to 175.30 months in prison. On appeal, she contends the trial court erred in denying her request for an interpreter, in failing to order a competency evaluation, and in entering a revocation order that included findings unsupported by the evidence and findings that conflicted with the trial court's earlier oral pronouncement. For the reasons that follow, we affirm but remand for entry of an amended order of revocation of community control.
We review the denial of a request for the services of an interpreter under an abuse of discretion standard. Flores v. State, 406 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) ; Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339, 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) ().
At the outset, we emphasize that trial courts should proceed cautiously before denying a defendant's request for the services of an interpreter, as a "non-Englishspeaking defendant has the right to an interpreter, a right grounded on due process and confrontation considerations of the Constitution." Tehrani v. State, 764 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Suarez v. State, 481 So. 2d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 1985) ); § 90.606, Fla. Stat. (2018) ()
Nevertheless, a review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. As we describe in greater detail below, the record reveals Calana-Reinoso had appeared before this same trial court judge on many prior occasions, and had engaged the court in English without any difficulty and without asking for an interpreter. Likewise, there was no indication that her counsel had difficulty in communicating with her in English, nor any record evidence that her counsel had requested the services of the interpreter at any of the prior hearings. Indeed, in the final hearing at issue, defense counsel never requested the services of an interpreter for his client.
On the original date of the scheduled community control violation hearing, defense counsel asked the court if Calana-Reinoso could "address the court herself" to discuss her dissatisfaction with a plea offer extended by the State. The court and Calana-Reinoso then engaged in a discussion that covers four transcript pages. Calana-Reinoso spoke in English throughout that discussion, and the transcript reflects no difficulty in her doing so. Her statements to the court were coherent, contextually appropriate, and reflected an understanding of the court's statements to her. The record belies any claim of difficulty with the English language.
After Calana-Reinoso's discussion with the trial court, plea negotiations broke down and the case proceeded to the community control violation hearing, which began with the testimony of the detective who investigated the crimes that served as one of the bases for the violation of community control. The detective testified that, during the investigation, he determined that the fingerprint found at the scene of the burglary matched that of the defendant, and that he met with and interviewed the victims regarding the burglary, theft and criminal mischief. He also testified that the victims provided handwritten statements and executed affidavits attesting to the relevant facts regarding the crimes, i.e., that they did not know the defendant, and that the defendant did not have permission to enter, or remove items from, their house. The statements and affidavits were admitted into evidence without objection. At no time during the hearing did Calana-Reinoso or her counsel request an interpreter or indicate that Calana-Reinoso had any difficulty understanding the prosecutor's questions or the witnesses’ testimony.
The hearing was then suspended and scheduled to resume two weeks later. At the hearing two weeks later, the parties had renewed their plea discussions and defense counsel announced his client wished to accept a plea. The trial court began the plea colloquy with Calana-Reinoso:
Thereafter, the court warned her of the proceeding's significance, that she was under oath, and that her answers had to be truthful under penalty of perjury. Calana-Reinoso answered that she understood each of these. The court announced the terms of the negotiated plea. After further discussion however, the plea colloquy abruptly stopped, and the defense asked to reschedule the proceedings to permit Calana-Reinoso to "get her affairs in order." The court accommodated the request and the case was reset yet again. Ultimately, the plea never materialized, and after several further hearings, the parties returned to court to complete the community control revocation hearing.
At that hearing, defense counsel sought to withdraw, advising that he and his client had irreconcilable differences. The court denied the motion and resumed the revocation hearing. The State called Calana-Reinoso as its next (and, as it turned out, its final) witness, to establish that she entered a plea, was placed first on probation and later modified to community control, she was on community control at the time of the alleged burglary offense, and she left the residential treatment program without completing it. Calana-Reinoso was already sworn in and answering the prosecutor's questions when the following occurred:
The court denied this request, determining that the services of an interpreter were unnecessary. Thereafter, the testimony continued without difficulty, and in fact the State asked Calana-Reinoso to read aloud several paragraphs from the probation orders she signed in 2011. The transcript reflects she did so without difficulty.1
We recognize that, as a general rule and given the attendant due process concerns, if a trial court has reason to believe that the accused cannot understand English or cannot express herself in English...
To continue reading
Request your trial