Cruz v. State
315 Ga. App. 843
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cruz was charged with aggravated child molestation, two counts of child molestation, and burglary; he received an out-of-time appeal challenging denial of his post-sentencing motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
- Counsel was appointed, Cruz communicated through interpreters due to Spanish, and a plea offer was proposed: dismiss the aggravated charge, plead to two counts, and a 20-year sentence (10 years to serve) with probation.
- Counsel provided a written letter explaining the plea offer and options; Cruz reviewed it with an interpreter and acknowledged understanding at a July 1, 2002 hearing with the offer expiry noted for July 5, 2002.
- Cruz rejected the State’s plea offer and later entered a nonnegotiated guilty plea in September 2002 after a hearing where the State proposed 30 to 17 years and the defense sought a 20 to 10-year sentence.
- The trial court accepted the nonnegotiated plea, imposing an aggregate sentence of 30 years (20 in prison) with probation conditions; Cruz then moveds to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, Cruz contends ineffective assistance of counsel and ineffective interpreter communications; the court ultimately affirms the denial of relief, finding adequate advice and voluntary entry of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance regarding plea offer | Cruz argues counsel failed to adequately explain the plea offer and consequences. | Cruz contends counsel’s performance was deficient in advising about the plea and nonnegotiated alternative. | No reversible error; counsel adequately advised Cruz; decision to reject offer rested with Cruz. |
| Interpreter communication effectiveness | Cruz argues inadequate interpreter assistance affected understanding. | Cruz contends counsel failed to communicate via certified interpreter; error in translation undermines voluntariness. | No reversible error; interpreters used, Cruz answered understandings on the record, waiver of timely objections; no ineffective assistance shown. |
| Voluntariness and knowingness of the plea | Cruz asserts the guilty plea was not voluntary/knowingly entered. | State asserts the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, supported by Cruz’s sworn testimony. | Guilty plea voluntarily entered; record supports knowing understanding of charges and consequences; denial of withdrawal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (ineffective assistance in plea bargaining requires proper explanation and understanding)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (admissibility of counsel's impact on plea outcomes under Strickland)
- Cammer v. Walker, 290 Ga. 251 (2011) (counsel's performance judged against objective standards; no hindsight review)
- Blass v. State, 293 Ga. App. 346 (2008) (record must show defendant understood plea; lack of understanding supports relief)
- Pineda v. State, 288 Ga. 612 (2011) (interpreter use; waiver for failure to object; communications adequate on record)
- Ramos v. Terry, 279 Ga. 889 (2005) (waiver principles for failure to challenge interpreter qualifications)