People v. Navarro
| Decision Date | 16 November 1987 |
| Citation | 521 N.Y.S.2d 82,134 A.D.2d 460 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hipolito J. NAVARRO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas Persichilli, Hicksville, for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Emily A. Constant, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and NIEHOFF, EIBER, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), rendered May 22, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that he could not have knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges against him because his limited knowledge of English prevented him from understanding the nature of the proceedings against him. It is within the sound discretion of the court to decide whether an appointment of an interpreter is necessary (see, United States v. Desist, 2nd Cir., 384 F.2d 889, affd. 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248; People v. De Armas, 106 A.D.2d 659, 660, 483 N.Y.S.2d 121; see also, Guerrero v. Harris, 461 F.Supp. 583, 586). Indeed, where the court is put on notice that a defendant has difficulty understanding or speaking the English language, it must "make unmistakably clear to him that he has a right to have a competent translator assist him, at state expense if need be" (United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 2nd Cir., 434 F.2d 386, 390-391; People v. De Armas, supra ). Where, on the other hand, no request for an interpreter has been made and the defendant appears to comprehend the nature of the proceedings and the charges against him, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by proceeding without appointing an interpreter (see, Guerrero v. Harris, supra; see also, Luna v. Black, 8th Cir., 772 F.2d 448, 451).
The defendant waived his right to an interpreter since, despite the appointment of new counsel prior to sentencing, he did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground prior to sentencing (see, CPL 470.05[2]; see also, People v. Ramos, 26 N.Y.2d 272, 274, 309 N.Y.S.2d 906, 258 N.E.2d 197). In any event, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint an interpreter. For the most part, the defendant, who is not a novice to the criminal justice system, answered the questions addressed to him during the plea allocution and exhibited an understanding of the nature of the proceedings and of the charges against him.
Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Wallace
...against him, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by proceeding without appointing an interpreter. People v. Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460, 461, 521 N.Y.S.2d 82, 83 (1987) (citations omitted). See also: Luna v. Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Carrion, 488 F.2d 1......
-
People v. Drici
...proceedings (see, People v. Reyes, 158 A.D.2d 626, 551 N.Y.S.2d 596; People v. Gamal, 148 A.D.2d 468, 538 N.Y.S.2d 620; People v. Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460, 521 N.Y.S.2d 82). Moreover, under the circumstances, there is no merit to his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to req......
-
People v. Hine
...People v. Fairclough, 116 A.D.2d 586, 497 N.Y.S.2d 444; see also, People v. Ramirez, 159 A.D.2d 375, 553 N.Y.S.2d 5; People v. Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460, 521 N.Y.S.2d 82). Since the sentence imposed was in accordance with a negotiated plea agreed to by the defendant, he has no basis now to co......
-
People v. Dun Chin
...clear to him that he has a right to have a competent translator assist him, at state expense if need be.' " ( People v. Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460, 521 N.Y.S.2d 82, quoting United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 2nd Cir., 434 F.2d 386, 390-391). Such a requirement is rooted not onl......