Eber Castro Morales v. State
06-16-00071-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 1, 2017Background
- Defendant Eber Castro Morales, a Guatemalan citizen, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and received a life sentence.
- An interpreter was provided at the waiver of jury trial/plea hearing but not during an earlier status hearing; Morales did not request an interpreter at that status hearing.
- The record includes a 50-minute English interview in which Morales communicated fluently and two written letters in English (one later claimed to have been drafted for him).
- Morales appealed arguing the trial court erred by failing to provide an interpreter for the status hearing.
- The trial court’s judgment included an Article 42.017 finding (suggesting Morales was under 19 at the time of the offense), which the State conceded was erroneous because the record showed Morales was 33.
- The court considered both the interpreter issue and the improper Article 42.017 language and modified the judgment to remove that language, then affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not providing an interpreter at the status hearing | Morales: lack of interpreter denied his constitutional/right to an interpreter | State: no request was made and record showed Morales understood English | No error — record showed Morales understood/spoke English; no notice to court he needed interpreter |
| Whether Article 42.017 language in the judgment should remain | Morales: language is incorrect because he was 33 at time of offense | State: concedes the Article 42.017 finding is erroneous | Modify judgment to delete Article 42.017 finding; affirm as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. State, 176 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004) (interpreters and constitutional rights)
- Garcia v. State, 149 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial judge must implement interpreter right if aware defendant has difficulty with English)
- Garnica v. State, 53 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (onus on trial court to inquire when language ability is raised)
- Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (fluent non-English does not automatically require interpreter)
- Flores v. State, 509 S.W.2d 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (same principle)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate authority to modify judgments to speak the truth)