Landeros v. State, A--16201

Citation480 P.2d 273
Decision Date20 January 1971
Docket NumberNo. A--16201,A--16201
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
PartiesSam LANDEROS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When the record reflects that the defendant could not understand the questions asked him, when being interrogated concerning his constitutional rights, any waiver of these rights could not have been knowledgeable and intelligently made.

2. In these cases when defendant is unable to plainly speak the English language, an interpreter should have been provided as a precautionary measure.

An appeal from the District Court of Carter County; Kenneth Shilling, Judge.

Sam Landeros was convicted of the crime of Murder, was sentenced to Life Imprisonment in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary upon a plea of Guilty, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

William J. Williams, Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Sam Landeros, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was arraigned in the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma, on September 8, 1969, on a charge of Murder. Defendant appeared with his court appointed counsel and at the arraignment especially set on defendant's request on that date, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and from that sentence this appeal has been perfected.

Defendant was charged with having caused the death of one, Milton Parker, on or about August 30, 1969. He was apprehended the following evening, taken into custody and interrogated by the Carter County authorities; thereafter, on September 8, 1969, he appeared before the District Court when the court explained his constitutional rights, including his right to trial by jury. From the record it initially appears the defendant, knowingly and intelligently, waived his rights to a jury trial when he entered his plea of guilty, with court appointed counsel being present; however, further examination of the record indicates that because of defendant's inability to speak English he may not have clearly understood the questions put to him by counsel and the court. At the time of arraignment, when the district court accepted the defendant's plea of guilty, the District Attorney advised the court that he had been in telephone conversation with Dr. Larry Cartmell, who assisted in performing the autopsy on the deceased, who told him that the cause of death was undetermined. Dr. Cartmell advised the District Attorney that he had also consulted with Dr. James Luke, Oklahoma State Medical Examiner, both of whom reached the same conclusion. On that premise the District Attorney recommended that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

Prior to imposing sentence, the court inquired of the defendant and his counsel if they chose to add anything to the District Attorney's statement; and if they chose to change defendant's plea from guilty to not guilty. To both inquiries the defendant answered 'no'. The court then proceeded to sentence defendant to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary and advised him of his rights to appeal.

Defense counsel requested that the court suspend the sentence. The court advised counsel it would be necessary that a written Motion be filed during the ten (10) day period the defendant was retained in the court's jurisdiction. Thereafter, counsel filed his Motion for Suspended Sentence and also filed an Application to withdraw the plea of guilty, and substitute therefor a plea of not guilty.

On September 30, 1969, a hearing was had on defendant's Motion; and it was during these proceedings when defendant's inability to properly converse in the English language was fully made known to the court. Defense counsel had present in court a qualified person to serve as an interpreter; however, the trial court preferred to conduct the hearing using the English language, which was done. Defendant took the witness stand and testified to the best of his ability, utilizing the English language, which the record reflects was with a limited capability. Thereafter the court denied defendant's Motions and directed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Faafiti, 5365
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1973
    ...would be meaningless to him and would violate our concept of due process, as he would not be given his day in court. Landeros v. State, 480 P.2d 273 (Okl.Cr.1971); Parra v. Page, 430 P.2d 834 (Okl.Cr.1967); United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 310 F.Supp. 1304 (E.D.N.Y., 1970)......
  • Murga, Application of
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1981
    ...fees for indigents. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; ORDER CONFIRMED. All of the Justices concur. 1 430 P.2d 834 (Okl.Cr.1967).2 480 P.2d 273 (Okl.Cr.1971).3 The procedure for approving claims against the court fund is set out generally in 20 O.S.Supp.1975 § 1304(a). The allowable claims are ......
  • Rodriguez v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 26, 1982
    ...the English language and should have been granted an interpreter. He cites Parra v. Page, 430 P.2d 834 (Okl.Cr.1967), and Landeros v. State, 480 P.2d 273 (Okl.Cr.1971), to support his argument. However, in those cases the defendants could not speak English and could not understand their rig......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT