People v. Ortiz

198 A.D.2d 912, 604 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11614
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the sentencing court erred in failing to inquire further concerning defendant’s request for an interpreter. During the plea colloquy, defendant stated that he was educated through the ninth grade; that he could read and write English; and that, during the drug transaction that was the basis of his guilty plea, defendant acted as an interpreter for those participants who could not speak English. The court further noted its recollection that defendant had no difficulty understanding or conversing with his attorney during several [913]*913previous court appearances, and that defendant requested an interpreter for the first time immediately prior to sentencing. Under the circumstances, there was no need for further inquiry. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boomer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Ortiz, 198 A.D.2d 912, 604 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

198 A.D.2d 912 (People v. Ortiz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gaylord
210 A.D.2d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)