Manuel CERVANTES, Appellant, v. Harold A. COX, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit1965-09-15No. No. 8192

350 F.2d 855

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that there is no constitutional right to a court-appointed interpreter or to counsel who speaks the defendant's native language, and that a language barrier is merely one circumstance to consider in evaluating whether counsel was effective and a plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly.

Manuel Cervantes, a Mexican national, challenged his guilty plea to second-degree murder on federal habeas review, arguing that a language barrier between himself and his court-appointed counsel violated his constitutional rights. He contended that without a court-appointed interpreter or English-speaking counsel, he could not effectively communicate and therefore could not have knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea. The district court rejected his petition, and the circuit court affirmed on appeal. Although acknowledging that extreme circumstances might arise where a language barrier prevents meaningful attorney-client communication, the court found no constitutional requirement for an interpreter or bilingual counsel. The trial court had found as fact that Cervantes possessed sufficient English proficiency to understand the proceedings, a conclusion supported by the record showing him asking clarifying questions and responding coherently to the court in English during his arraignment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a language barrier between defendant and counsel violates the right to effective assistance of counsel
Whether defendants have a constitutional right to a court-appointed interpreter
Whether defendants have a right to counsel fluent in their native language
Whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily despite alleged language difficulties

Procedural posture

The appeal challenges a district court's denial of a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner challenging his guilty plea conviction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of New Mexico denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant, a Mexican national, was originally charged with first degree murder and is presently serving a sentence imposed by the New Mexico state court after acceptance of a plea of guilty to second degree murder. He alleges that he was denied several federal constitutional rights in the state court proceedings, each such claim springing from the contention that he could not and did not understandingly communicate with his appointed counsel because of the existence of a language barrier. Although we have no doubt that under extreme circumstances the inability of an accused to communicate with his counsel may deny to him the right to effective representation and actually result in the entry of a plea without understanding we do not find the case at bar to be of such nature. There is no constitutional right, as such, requiring the assistance of a court-appointed interpreter to supplement the right to counsel. Nor is there a duty to an accused to furnish counsel who can communicate freely with the accused in his native tongue. The existence of a language barrier between counsel and client is merely one circumstance probing the questions of whether the accused has been adequately represented by counsel and has voluntarily and knowingly entered his plea. Here, the trial court, rejecting the credibility of appellant’s present testimony, found as a fact that appellant had a sufficient knowledge of the English language to be completely aware of all of the proceedings in the state court. The finding is amply supported by the transcript of the state arraignment where the following occurred, all in the English language:

“THE COURT: Are you prepared to enter a plea at this time?

MR. CERVANTES: I would like to find out what is the charge before I plea.

THE COURT: Well, the Court’s been informed by Mr. Durrett, one of your attorneys, and Mr. Wilkinson is the other one, and the Assistant District Attorney that you wanted to enter a plea to a charge of murder in the second degree. Now, is that correct?

MR. CERVANTES: I do.

THE COURT: Very well, Mr. Garza, do you want to make a motion?

******

THE COURT: Now are you prepared to enter a plea at this time ?

MR. CERVANTES: Yes:

THE COURT: The Court has appointed two attorneys to represent you, and they have asked that they have time to consult with you, and I presume they have. Are you satisfied with their representation?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you know of any reason why this Court should not sentence you at this time ?

MR. CERVANTES: No, I don’t think so.

THE COURT: And you want to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree, is that correct ?

MR. CERVANTES: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you have anything to say before the Court passes sentence ?

MR. CERVANTES: No, sir.”

Appellant’s independent inquiry as to the charge to which he was to plead indicates an understanding that it was to be a reduced charge and that he had the ability to communicate both with the court and with his counsel.

Affirmed.