Ling v. State
288 Ga. 299
| Ga. | 2010Background
- Ling, a Mandarin Chinese speaker, was convicted of one count of cruelty to a child in Spalding County, Georgia.
- Ling moved for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not obtaining an interpreter and for reliance on her husband to convey a plea offer.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address Ling’s competence under Drope and whether lack of interpreter violated due process.
- The Court held non-English speakers may be effectively incompetent without an interpreter and remanded to apply Drope and state findings on the record.
- On remand, the court should consider whether Ling was denied the right to be present and whether counsel’s handling of the plea offer was ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether language deficiencies implicate due process and competence to stand trial. | Ling argues language barriers deprived due process. | State contends Ling was competent without an interpreter. | Remand to apply Drope and assess competence. |
| Whether trial court must state its findings on interpreter necessity at new-trial stage. | Ling entitlement to explicit findings. | Court can rely on record without express findings. | Remand for explicit findings on the interpreter issue. |
| Whether failure to obtain an interpreter prejudiced Ling under Strickland. | Counsel's failure caused prejudice by inaudible plea conveyance. | No prejudice shown; Ling understood plea; trial outcome unlikely changed. | Remand to assess whether Ling would have accepted the plea and whether prejudice occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Terry, 279 Ga. 889 (2005) (recognizes need for interpreters to preserve access to justice)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process requires competence to proceed; language barriers implicate rights)
- Biggs v. State, 281 Ga. 627 (2007) (language proficiency affects competency and trial rights)
- Puga-Cerantes v. State, 281 Ga. 78 (2006) (language interpretation implicated due process in criminal proceedings)
- Holliday v. State, 263 Ga.App. 664 (2003) (language interpretation concerns tied to due process)