People v. Atsilis, Docket No. 20842
| Decision Date | 28 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 20842,1 |
| Citation | 231 N.W.2d 534,60 Mich.App. 738 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis ATSILIS, a/k/a Luis Velazques, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
M. Hector Cisneros, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan Pros. Atty., Patricia J. Boyle, Appellate Chief, John C. Mouradian, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and KELLY and O'HARA, * JJ.
The defendant pled nolo contendere to the charge of attempted larceny in a building. M.C.L.A. § 750.92; M.S.A. § 28.287. He was sentenced to a term of one to two years in prison. Defendant's only claim, on appeal, is that he was deprived of his right to due process of law by the trial judge's failure to appoint an interpreter in defendant's behalf.
Defendant is a Puerto Rican and claims to have little knowledge of the English language. Consequently, he contends that he did not fully understand the nature of the proceedings against him. The question of whether an interpreter is needed for the defendant is a matter for the trial judge's discretion. M.C.L.A. § 775.19a; M.S.A. § 28.1256(1), Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86, 27 S.Ct. 456, 51 L.Ed. 722 (1907). Whenever it appears that a defendant is incapable of understanding the nature of, or of defending himself in, the proceedings against him because he is unable to understand the English language, an interpreter should be appointed in his behalf. But a trial judge is not under a duty to affirmatively establish a defendant's proficiency in the English language when no evidence is presented to him that could put the issue in doubt. In the present case, neither the record nor defendant's trial counsel indicated that defendant had any difficulties with English. The trial judge himself interrogated defendant when he submitted his plea, and the interrogation produced no evidence of a language barrier. Under these circumstances, we can only affirm the trial court.
Furthermore, defendant has raised this issue for the first time on appeal. The trial judge has not been given an opportunity to investigate the factual basis of the claim. This Court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. People v. White, 53 Mich.App. 51, 218 N.W.2d 403 (1974).
Affirmed.
* MICHAEL D. O'HARA,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Drossart
...to grant the request for a continuance, seemingly rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id. Cf. People v. Atsilis, 60 Mich.App. 738, 231 N.W.2d 534 (1975). Accordingly, it is evident that the defendant did not have a legitimate reason for requesting a continuance for the purpose......
-
Com. v. Wallace
...Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1362 (Del.1992); State v. Neave, supra at 373-77, 344 N.W.2d at 188-189; People v. Atsilis, 60 Mich.App. 738, 739, 231 N.W.2d 534, 535 (1975). "[A] defendant does not necessarily lose his right to an interpreter by not asserting it. It depends on the facts in e......
-
People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo
...or appoint an interpreter in light of the record evidence concerning his limited understanding of English. Compare People v. Atsilis, 60 Mich.App. 738, 739, 231 N.W.2d 534 (1975) (“[A] trial judge is not under a duty to affirmatively establish a defendant's 862 N.W.2d 666proficiency in the ......
-
Gonzalez v. Phillips
...appoint an interpreter where the record clearly shows that the defendant spoke no English whatsoever"). See also, People v. Atsilis, 60 Mich.App. 738, 231 N.W.2d 534 (1975) (whenever it appears that a defendant is incapable of understanding nature of, or of defending himself in, proceedings......