State v. Pablo–ramirez
| Decision Date | 27 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D10–758.,2D10–758. |
| Citation | 61 So.3d 488 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant,v.Teodoro PABLO–RAMIREZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja Rene Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.Bryant R. Camareno of Bryant R. Camareno, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.SILBERMAN, Judge.
A jury convicted Teodoro Pablo–Ramirez of sexual battery on a victim under twelve and child abuse after the State presented evidence that Ramirez impregnated his wife's sister when she was eleven years old. The State seeks review of the order which granted Pablo–Ramirez's motion for new trial. In the order, the trial judge stated that a predecessor judge “erred as a matter of law” in denying Pablo–Ramirez's motion to suppress. We reverse because the trial judge exceeded his authority by conducting what amounts to an appellate review of a predecessor judge's ruling and overturning the predecessor judge's decision.
The charges against Pablo–Ramirez arose after it was discovered that a newly-enrolled student at a middle school had a two-year-old child. The fourteen-year-old student provided the police with information that led them to Pablo–Ramirez, who was then thirty years old. When the police interviewed Pablo–Ramirez, who is from Guatemala, one officer asked questions in English and another officer translated into Spanish. Pablo–Ramirez waived his Miranda 1 rights and gave a statement in which he confessed to the charged crimes.
Prior to trial, Pablo–Ramirez filed a motion to suppress in which he argued that his confession was involuntary because he was not offered the services of an interpreter who was fluent in Pablo–Ramirez's Guatemalan dialect, Mam. Judge J. Rodgers Padgett conducted a hearing on the motion to suppress. Although Pablo–Ramirez testified through a Spanish interpreter at the hearing, he claimed that he did not understand his Miranda rights when they were read to him in Spanish. He said he understood some things that were said to him in the interview, but he did not understand others. He also could not read or write in Spanish.
Deputy Vasquez testified that Pablo–Ramirez gave no indication that he did not understand his Miranda rights. Deputy Vasquez explained that he questioned Pablo–Ramirez in Spanish and asked questions posed in English by Detective Bashner, who did not speak or understand Spanish. Deputy Vasquez was aware that Pablo–Ramirez was from Guatemala, and the deputy sometimes had to use different words to explain certain questions. Both Deputy Vasquez and Detective Bashner testified that Pablo–Ramirez otherwise responded appropriately to the questions without indicating that he did not understand.
Gloria Munoz, the interpreter who transcribed the interview, also testified that Pablo–Ramirez answered the questions asked of him and could understand Spanish. Although portions of the recorded interview were unintelligible, Munoz explained this was due to the quality of the recording and not the difference in dialects.
Judge Padgett denied the motion to suppress based on his determination that Pablo–Ramirez understood the interview questions and gave logical answers. Judge Padgett made an express credibility determination that Deputy Vasquez and Detective Bashner were more believable than Pablo–Ramirez.
Judge Wayne S. Timmerman conducted the trial in this case, and it appears that a Spanish interpreter was used at trial. The State adduced testimony similar to that presented at the suppression hearing. Pablo–Ramirez's interview with the police was played for the jury, but Pablo–Ramirez did not testify. The trial judge questioned Pablo–Ramirez regarding his waiver of his right to testify. Pablo–Ramirez indicated that he spoke another dialect and did not “understand the laws here.” The judge noted that Pablo–Ramirez appeared to understand what the judge had said. Pablo–Ramirez stated, Pablo–Ramirez then confirmed that he did not want to testify.
After the jury found Pablo–Ramirez guilty and the court imposed the mandatory life sentence, Pablo–Ramirez timely filed a motion for new trial. Several months later, the trial judge conducted a hearing to determine whether Pablo–Ramirez was competent.2 At this hearing, the judge repeatedly expressed his concern about whether Pablo–Ramirez understood that he had committed a crime by having sexual relations with an eleven-year-old. The judge noted that the victim had left for Guatemala and refused to come back. He also expressed concern because Pablo–Ramirez had rejected a ten-year plea deal and was ultimately sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison. Judge Timmerman explained,
I have this abiding feeling that this man then and now really has no comprehension of [sic] because of cultural difference and linguistic and lack of education, did not comprehend that he was in the United States he was doing something that was acceptable in his country but over here he can get life in prison.He then declared Pablo–Ramirez incompetent to proceed.
A week after this ruling, Pablo–Ramirez filed another motion for new trial in which he argued that Judge Padgett erred in denying his motion to suppress. Judge Timmerman granted the motion without hearing any substantive argument or making any findings on the record except to say he had “severe issues in this case” because Pablo–Ramirez “was convicted of an offense that carries a mandatory life sentence.” The order granting the motion states in its entirety that the judge who denied the motion to suppress
On appeal, the State argues that Judge Timmerman erred in granting a new trial on this basis. The State claims that the motion for new trial was untimely and that Judge Padgett had properly denied Pablo–Ramirez's motion to suppress. We reject the first argument, but we reverse as to the second.
The jury rendered its verdict on February 24, 2009, and Pablo–Ramirez filed a timely motion for new trial on March 4,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rosario
...3d DCA 2012) (recognizing rule 3.590(a) ’s ten-day period "is jurisdictional in nature" (citation omitted)); State v. Pablo-Ramirez, 61 So. 3d 488, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("We are mindful that the time period for filing a motion for new trial is jurisdictional and that the trial court does ......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...The successor judge cannot act as an appellate court in reviewing the correctness of the prior judge’s rulings. State v. Pablo-Ramirez, 61 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) Resentencing by a successor judge without a showing of necessity is not a sentencing error under rule 3.800(b). The defend......
-
Search and seizure
...The successor judge cannot act as an appellate court in reviewing the correctness of the prior judge’s rulings. State v. Pablo-Ramirez, 61 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) SEARCH & SEIZURE 11-7 Search and Seizure: Generally 11.1 The fact that defendant was living and working in a rural house s......
-
Defendant's statements
...to have sex with an 11-year old child), cultural differences do not affect the voluntariness of a confession. State v. Pablo-Ramirez, 61 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) When a defendant challenges the voluntariness of a confession, the state has the burden of showing by a preponderance of evi......
-
Post-trial motions
...trial court properly heard the motion because the court’s jurisdiction was properly invoked by the first motion. State v. Pablo-Ramirez, 61 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) While the court typically reviews denials of motions for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard, the standard be......