Jesus Rivera Davila v. State
07-14-00408-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jun 12, 2015Background
- In April 2013 Jesus Rivera Davila pleaded guilty to first-degree felony possession and was placed on five years deferred adjudication with various conditions (fine, lab fees, 400 community-service hours, transfer fee).
- The State filed a Motion to Adjudicate (Mar. 7, 2014) alleging violations including possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in Florida, cocaine use, failure to report by mail (Nov. 2013), and failure to complete community service.
- At the Nov. 19, 2014 revocation hearing Davila pleaded not true; the court appointed an interpreter for the hearing.
- The State presented testimony from Texas community-supervision officers and Florida probation records showing missed reporting and incomplete community service; Florida court documents showing a conviction/sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia were admitted.
- The State waived the cocaine-possession and cocaine-consumption allegations; the trial court found Davila violated supervision for possession of drug paraphernalia, failure to report, and insufficient community service, adjudicated him guilty, and assessed 55 years' incarceration plus remaining fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davila) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an interpreter was required for the community-supervision intake interview | Intake interviews are not criminal proceedings under art. 38.30; no interpreter is required for intake | Trial court should have appointed an interpreter to ensure due process/confrontation rights were protected | Court affirmed that art. 38.30 does not require an interpreter for intake interviews because they are not criminal proceedings |
| Whether lack of interpreter at intake denied confrontation/due process | No — Davila later had an interpreter at plea and revocation hearings; intake was nonadversarial and Davila communicated in English | Failure to appoint an interpreter at intake prevented meaningful understanding of terms and later confrontation | Held that Davila was not denied due process; his ability to communicate in English and lack of request for an interpreter negated the need |
| Whether the evidence supported adjudication (revocation) | Records, officer testimony, and Florida documents supported violations (missed reporting, insufficient community service, drug-paraphernalia conviction) | Davila contested allegations at hearing | Court adjudicated guilt and imposed sentence — State’s proof was sufficient as to the sustained violations |
| Whether appellant preserved or affirmatively stated confusion about terms | State: appellant never affirmed he failed to understand the intake terms and never requested interpreter | Appellant argued the absence of interpreter itself is error | Held that appellant did not affirmatively claim lack of understanding; absence of a request or complaint undermined his claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bustillos v. State, 464 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (abuse-of-discretion review for interpreter appointment)
- Diaz v. State, 491 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (confrontation/interpreter principles)
- Nguyen v. State, 774 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (interpreter need tied to criminal proceeding and confrontation rights)
- Cantu v. State, 716 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1986) (interpreter and confrontation authority)