Cisneros v. the State
334 Ga. App. 659
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Between Feb–Apr 2004, a group of masked, Spanish-speaking gunmen committed multiple early-morning home invasions in Gwinnett County, tying victims, stealing property, and in some incidents committing sexual battery and shootings.
- Gustavo Cisneros was tried separately on a 24-count indictment and convicted on multiple counts (burglary, armed robbery, aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery, attempted armed robbery); he appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence for several counts and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Key State evidence: co-defendant testimony (Ortega and Martinez) placing Cisneros as driver/lookout for several robberies; items stolen from some victims were recovered in searched apartments; physical evidence (masks, weapons) seized from co-defendants’ locations/vehicle.
- The State relied on modus operandi similarities across the robberies and on accomplice testimony and recovered property to connect Cisneros to specific incidents.
- The trial court denied a mistrial after a juror (an alternate) repeatedly commented about Spanish translations; Cisneros later claimed counsel was ineffective for not challenging the courtroom interpreter or insisting on a formal interpreter-hearing under state rules.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed (a) whether the evidence was legally sufficient as to specified counts and (b) whether trial counsel’s failure to challenge interpretation constituted ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cisneros) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Oakland Walk (Counts 1–4) | No direct ID or proof Cisneros possessed Oakland Walk property; circumstantial evidence insufficient | Ortega’s statements, modus operandi, and stolen items found in Willow Trail apartment (alleged Cisneros residence) establish guilt | Reversed — evidence insufficient for Counts 1–4 |
| Sufficiency for River Landing (Counts 5–6) | No ID, no proof Cisneros possessed River Landing property; circumstantial link fails | Proceeds found in Willow Trail apartment tie group to robbery | Reversed — evidence insufficient for Counts 5–6 |
| Sufficiency for Glenwhite (Counts 7–8) | Ortega uncorroborated; accomplice testimony unreliable | Independent circumstantial evidence and modus operandi corroborate Ortega | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for Counts 7–8 |
| Sufficiency for Sandune (Counts 9–10) | Ortega’s testimony needs corroboration | Modus operandi and other evidence corroborate Ortega | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for Counts 9–10 |
| Sufficiency for Skyview/Shadowood sexual battery (Count 14) | Cisneros was not the molester; no specific intent to sexual battery | All participants are liable for probable consequences of joint criminal plan | Affirmed — Cisneros guilty as party to sexual battery |
| Sufficiency for Appian Way (Counts 18–19) | No evidence Cisneros was present, planned, or aided that aborted attempt | Gang membership, planning role, and victims’ identity tie Cisneros to plot | Reversed — evidence insufficient for Counts 18–19 |
| Ineffective assistance for interpreter challenge | Counsel should have objected earlier and insisted on Supreme Court interpreter-hearing; expert later claimed systematic interpreter errors — prejudice likely | Interpreter was court-certified; defense had a second certified interpreter at counsel table; counsel had no basis to distrust interpretation | Denied — counsel not deficient and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Salazar v. State, 326 Ga. App. 627 (appellate sufficiency review reminder)
- Lobdell v. State, 256 Ga. 769 (all participants responsible for acts in execution of plan)
- Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833 (modus operandi can corroborate accomplice testimony)
- Martinez v. State, 306 Ga. App. 512 (use of similar crimes to corroborate accomplice)
- Baldivia v. State, 267 Ga. App. 266 (failure to timely object to interpreter waives claim)
- Choi v. State, 269 Ga. 376 (no reversible error absent specific harmful interpreter errors shown)
- Powell v. State, 297 Ga. 352 (Strickland standard restated for ineffective assistance)