Ramos v. Terry, S05A1123.

• Decision Date: 21 November 2005
• Docket Number: No. S05A1123.,S05A1123.
• Citation: 622 S.E.2d 339,279 Ga. 889
• Parties: RAMOS v. TERRY, Warden.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

279 Ga. 889

622 S.E.2d 339

RAMOS v. TERRY, Warden.

No. S05A1123.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

November 21, 2005.

Roberto Ramos, Glennville, for appellant.

Hon. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Jason Charles Fisher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, Georgia Public Defender Council, Leigh Stevens Schrope, Georgia Public Defender Council, amicus appellant.

BENHAM, Justice.

We granted petitioner Robert Ramos's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in order to determine whether Ramos was denied a full and fair habeas hearing due to inadequacies of the interpreter used at the habeas hearing.

Robert Ramos was convicted of aggravated assault and reckless driving in the Superior Court of Clayton County in April 2002 and sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment. Following the affirmance of the judgment of conviction by the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion (Ramos v. State, 260 Ga.App. XXVI) (2003), Ramos filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he contested the sufficiency of the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence and contended his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. After the habeas court set a date for a hearing to be held at the prison where Ramos was incarcerated, Ramos filed a motion seeking the appointment of an interpreter to serve at the hearing because Ramos, of Mexican descent, was not an American citizen and could not speak or understand English well. ¹

No interpreter was appointed prior to the hearing and the habeas judge first became aware of the motion for an interpreter when Ramos mentioned it at the commencement of his hearing, four months after the motion had been filed. The habeas court then attempted to converse with Ramos in English and obtained information about Ramos's English-speaking capabilities from Ramos's bilingual trial counsel, who was present as a witness in the habeas hearing. After being informed the Superior Court of Tattnall County had a Spanish interpreter it used when needed but the interpreter's whereabouts were unknown and noting the distance trial counsel had traveled to be present, the habeas court recessed the hearing in order that an interpreter might be found. After a 100-minute recess, a prison employee who spoke Spanish was presented to the court and was administered an oath whereby the employee swore to translate correctly English into Spanish and Spanish into English. The 37-page transcript of the hearing reflects the interpreter and Ramos repeatedly conferred with one another, after which the interpreter gave a summary of the conversation to the court; the court told the interpreter several times she was not to have a conversation with Ramos but was just to repeat the questions and answers; and the sole witness, the attorney who was Ramos's trial and appellate counsel, was directed on numerous occasions to slow down his responses to questions so that the interpreter could keep up. The habeas court concluded the hearing with an oral ruling which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

1. In his application for certificate of probable cause, Ramos contends, among other things, that the interpreter was not of Mexican descent and spoke a different dialect of Spanish than he, causing a communications gap that resulted in the termination of the habeas hearing before Ramos presented all of his grounds for relief.

Ramos's petition sought habeas relief on the ground his liberty was being restrained by virtue of a sentence imposed on him by a state court of record following proceedings in which he allegedly was denied constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Accordingly, the adjudication of his habeas petition had to be preceded by a statutorily-required hearing (OCGA § 9-14-47; Rickett v. State, 276 Ga. 609(2), 581 S.E.2d 32 (2003)), which had to comport with the fundamental requirements of due process-notice and opportunity to be heard (see Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)), as well as the petitioner's right to meaningful access to the courts and meaningful communications with the courts. Howard v Sharpe, 266 Ga. 771(1), 470 S.E.2d 678 (1996). See also Augustin v. Sava, 735 F.2d 32, 37 (2nd Cir.1984) ("The very essence of due process is a `meaningful opportunity to be heard.'").

In an effort to secure the rights of non-English-speaking persons in judicial proceedings, this Court exercised its inherent power "to maintain a court system capable of providing for the administration of justice in an orderly and efficient manner" (Garcia v. Miller, 261 Ga. 531(3), 408 S.E.2d 97 (1991)), and its constitutional authority to adopt rules providing for "the speedy, efficient, and inexpensive resolution of disputes and prosecutions" (1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, § IX, Par. I), to promulgate rules establishing a statewide plan for the use of interpreters in proceedings involving non-English speakers before any court or grand jury hearing in Georgia. Briefly summarized, when a party or witness to a covered proceeding requests an interpreter, the rules on use of interpreters envisage a pre-hearing examination of the non-English-speaking person by the court and appointment of an interpreter upon a judicial determination that the requestor does not understand and speak English well enough to participate fully in the proceeding. Use of Interpreters for Non-English Speaking Persons, Appendix A, Uniform Rule for Interpreter Programs, § I(A), (D). A court should make a "diligent effort" to appoint an interpreter certified by the Georgia Commission on Interpreters;² if one is not available, the court is to give preference to a person on the list of registered interpreters.³ Commentary to Rule 1, Use of Interpreters for Non-English Speaking Persons; Appendix B, Powers and Duties of the Georgia Commission on Interpreters, § X. Where, as was the situation in the case at bar, neither a certified nor a registered interpreter is available, the court "should weigh the need for immediacy in conducting a hearing against the potential compromise of due process, or the potential of substantive injustice, if interpreting is inadequate." Id. If the court decides to proceed with a less qualified interpreter, the court should give the less qualified interpreter specified written or oral instructions on basic rules of interpreting in a judicial setting (Appendix A, § I(F)), and when a non-professional interpreter...