Commonwealth v. Gautreaux, 458 Mass. 741

Background

Gautreaux, a Dominican-born non-citizen with limited English fluency, moved to the United States at age 14 and has Spanish as his primary language.
He pleaded guilty in Lawrence District Court on August 27, 2003 to three arrests under a plea bargain resulting in an eleven-month house-of-correction sentence suspended for eighteen months with probation.
In 2008 he was arrested again and on July 8, 2008 received a deportation order from the DHS.
In February 2009 he moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b) to vacate his guilty pleas and for a new trial, claiming Vienna Convention art. 36 consular notification violations and lack of an interpreter at plea.
The motion was denied by the judge who accepted the pleas, who concluded there was no Massachusetts case law on art. 36 enforceability and questioned the interpreter issue due to a destroyed tape and the judge’s practice of providing interpreters when needed.
The defendant appealed to this court to determine whether art. 36 creates individually enforceable rights and the proper remedy, and whether the absence of an interpreter at the plea hearing was error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Vienna Convention art. 36 create individually enforceable rights and a private remedy?	Gautreaux contends art. 36 creates enforceable rights and allows relief via a new trial if violated.	Commonwealth argues there is no private right or remedy for art. 36 violations under Massachusetts law.	Art. 36 rights may be enforceable; relief may be available via a new trial postconviction review.
Whether failure to notify consulate at arrest violates art. 36 and supports a new-trial remedy upon a substantial-risk finding.	Notification failure prejudiced the defendant and could have affected outcomes.	No sufficient evidence that consular notification would have altered proceedings or outcomes.	A substantial risk of miscarriage of justice was not shown; remedy not required on this basis.
Was the defendant entitled to an interpreter at the plea hearing and was the absence established?	Defendant asserts no interpreter was provided, undermining understanding of alien warnings and pleas.	Commonwealth asserts routine interpreter availability and defense counsel corroboration; record is ambiguous.	The defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the plea proceeding was conducted with an interpreter.
Was the deportation warning under G. L. c. 278, § 29D adequately provided, and does its presence affect the plea validity?	If the warning was inadequate, pleas may be vacated.	Warning was provided in the plea forms; absence of a tape does not prove lack of advisement.	The record shows the deportation advisement was given; the plea was properly advised.

Key Cases Cited

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (rights under Art. 36 do not automatically yield private remedies; requires domestic procedural framework)
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (discusses self-execution and international obligations; art. 36 obligations and remedies viewed)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (duty of defense counsel to give correct immigration consequences advisement when deportation is clear)
Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 677 (2003) (addressed art. 36 enforceability; suppression not available remedy; informs Massachusetts treatment)
Commonwealth v. Grannum, 457 Mass. 128 (2010) (standard for determining whether a plea proceeding was correctly conducted; presumption of correctness)
Commonwealth v. McCoy, 456 Mass. 838 (2010) (ineffectiveness of counsel and related posttrial relief considerations)