Ex parte Marez
| Decision Date | 31 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43927,43927 |
| Citation | 464 S.W.2d 866 |
| Parties | Ex parte John Junior MAREZ. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Gilbert Shaw, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Camille Elliott, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding under Article 11.07 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. and in accordance with Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 824, in which the petitioner seeks his release from confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. He was represented by retained counsel at his trial, where he entered a plea of guilty before a jury for the offense of statutory rape and punishment was assessed at fifty years. He was appointed counsel on his appeal; judgment affirmed by this court, see Marez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 410. On appeal, no issue was raised that petitioner could not and did not understand the trial proceedings.
Petitioner challenges his conviction on the ground that he could not read, write, or understand the English language sufficiently to understand the nature of the legal proceedings at his trial or to assist his trial counsel with his defense. He therefore contends that his plea of guilty was void, as he had requested his trial counsel to have an interpreter appointed and said counsel refused or ignored his request.
The present judge of the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County appointed counsel to represent petitioner on his habeas corpus hearing where the evidence was stipulated. The court entered an order finding that petitioner was deprived of a fair trial in that he was unable to read, write and understand the English language.
In Garcia v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 210 S.W.2d 574, 580, this court said:
'All persons are charged with notice that for crimes committed against the laws of this State, the trial will be conducted in the English language and that for non-English speaking witnesses the law has made provision for the translation of their testimony by interpreters into the English language, with no express statutory provision requiring interpreters for those accused of crime who do not speak or understand the English language.'
Thus, the only basis for a trial court providing an interpreter to an accused is because of the constitutional and statutory guarantees of confrontation under the Constitution of Texas and of the United States. See Art. I, Sec. 10, Vernon's Ann.St.Con., and the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923.
The right to confrontation may be waived and is not fixed or immovable. Art. 1.14 V.A.C.C.P.; Field v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 137, 232 S.W.2d 717.
In the case at bar, unlike Garcia v. State, supra, there is no showing that petitioner could not and did not understand the English language during his trial. There is no showing that his trial counsel could not and did not communicate in Spanish with petitioner. There were two persons of Mexican extraction, other than petitioner, who testified during the trial; both of whom, as well as petitioner, testified in the English language. By the court reporter's transcription of the original trial, there is not the slightest inkling that petitioner could not and did not understand the proceedings which, of course, were conducted in the English language. His testimony comprises eight pages of the statement of facts; almost 1/5 of the entire proceedings, and all the testimony is in clear, concise, and intelligible English. An example of his answers, as revealed by the record on appeal, is as follows:
'My brother just called her and asked her to go with him and she said okay and they went and picked her up and then we were there at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. State
...WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 1393 (Chadbourn Rev. Ed.1974). 7. WIGMORE, supra note 6. 8. See Baltierra, 586 S.W.2d at 556-59; Ex Parte Marez, 464 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). 9. Garcia v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 593, 601, 210 S.W.2d 574, 580 (1948). See also Baltierra, 586 S.W.2d at 10. Wong Wi......
-
Ex parte Davila, 50334
...Ex parte Williams, 486 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Slaton, 484 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Marez, 464 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Ex parte Johnson, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 224 S.W.2d 240 (1949); Ex parte Bazemore, 430 S.W.......
-
Baltierra v. State
...was no testimony that appellant was unable to understand English or whether his counsel could interpret for him. In Ex Parte Marez, 464 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) this Court recognized that providing an interpreter to an accused is based on the constitutional and statutory guarantees of c......
-
Gonzales v. State
...did understand and did intend to waive those rights. See Appendix--Chronology, September 17, 1996; see also Ex parte Marez, 464 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). We therefore find that error was not committed by the trial court in accepting Appellant's plea of guilty, there being nothing......