This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a Spanish-speaking individual who does not understand English, was convicted of two counts of trafficking cocaine. During the trial, a non-certified interpreter was appointed to translate court proceedings and communications with the Defendant's attorney, as no certified interpreter was available. The Defendant did not object to the interpreter during the trial. After the conviction, the Defendant's former wife informed his attorney that the Defendant had not understood the trial due to the interpreter speaking a different dialect of Spanish (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of trafficking cocaine (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his due process rights were violated because the interpreter was not certified and spoke a different dialect, which prevented him from understanding the trial. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and requested a remand for an evidentiary hearing to establish facts supporting his claims (paras 1, 3-4, 13).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant failed to object to the interpreter during the trial and that the record lacked sufficient facts to support the Defendant's claims. They argued that the convictions should be affirmed (paras 2, 7, 10).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant denied due process due to the use of a non-certified interpreter who spoke a different dialect of Spanish?
- Should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to establish facts regarding the adequacy of the interpreter?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's request for remand and affirmed the convictions (paras 1, 14).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Minzner and Chavez JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant did not object to the interpreter during the trial, nor did he provide the trial court an opportunity to address the issue. The Court emphasized that the Defendant bore the burden of establishing the inadequacy of the interpreter, which he failed to do. The Court distinguished this case from others where remand was granted, noting that those cases involved claims requiring factual inquiries by the trial court, such as Batson challenges, which were not applicable here (paras 2, 7-10).
The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that his constitutional right to an interpreter was violated, as there were no facts of record to support this claim. The Court held that the Defendant could pursue post-conviction relief to develop a factual record if necessary, but remand was not appropriate in this appeal (paras 7, 10-12).
Finally, the Court declined to consider the Defendant's claim of insufficient evidence, as it was based on the alleged inadequacy of the interpreter, which lacked factual support in the record (para 13).