Commonwealth v. Yardley Y.
464 Mass. 223
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Defendant, Cambodian Khmai speaker, pleaded in 1995 to assault with a dangerous weapon and indecent assault; interpreter presence during plea is contested.
- Court records show interpreters were ordered for several dates, but not clearly present at the plea hearing; docket indicates interpreter for later dates.
- Plea colloquy record bears a blank line on the tender of plea form; 1995 plea resulted in probation after admitting sufficient facts.
- Defendant moved in 2009 to vacate pleas, alleging lack of interpreter, lack of parental/experienced adult guidance, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Affidavits from defendant’s mother and victim contested interpreter presence; defendant presented a 1996 DYS/educational report suggesting cognitive deficits.
- Judge denied the motion after testimony and found the record supported that an interpreter was present and that the defendant understood the plea; Appeals Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary despite alleged interpreter absence | Commonwealth contends presumption of regularity governs; record shows interpreter was ordered | Defendant argues no interpreter was present, undermining understanding and voluntariness | No abuse of discretion; presumption maintained; interpreter presence supported by record |
| Whether defendant received effective assistance of counsel | Commonwealth argues insufficient evidence of deficient performance | Defendant asserts counsel failed to protect rights, investigate competency, or pursue motions | Denied; record insufficient to prove ineffective assistance |
| Whether the judge properly relied on court practices and affidavits to reconstruct the plea | Commonwealth argues routine practice supported the presence of interpreter | Defendant contends affidavits show no interpreter or inadequate support | No reversible error; judge acted within discretion in relying on practice and affidavits |
| Whether lack of docketing interpreter presence undermines voluntariness | Commonwealth maintains docketing need not reflect interpreter presence | Defendant argues docket absence undermines understanding | Rejected; court need not docket interpreter presence; practice supports conclusion |
| Whether the 1995 juvenile proceedings required heightened parental consultation for waiver | Commonwealth acknowledges juveniles’ capacity but emphasizes consultation norm | Argues insufficient consultation due to interpreter issues | Court held sufficient opportunity for consultation with attorney and mother; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Quinones, 414 Mass. 423 (1993) (need for knowing and voluntary waiver; reliance on judge's discretion in plea)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 426 Mass. 657 (1998) (burden on defendant when contemporaneous record is lost; presumption of regularity)
- Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 389 Mass. 128 (1983) (juveniles’ capacity; need for meaningful consultation for waivers)
- Commonwealth v. Sherman, 451 Mass. 332 (2008) (plea withdrawal when not knowing and voluntary; review via new trial motion)
- Commonwealth v. Gautreaux, 458 Mass. 741 (2011) (burden on defendant where plea record destroyed; use of regularity presumption)
- Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71 (1987) (necessity of parental/other adult consultation for juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Tevenal, 401 Mass. 225 (1987) (juvenile consults with family; interpreter absence relevance)
- Commonwealth v. Fenton F., 442 Mass. 31 (2004) (ineffective assistance standard; fallible lawyer)