Sanchez v. State, 330 S.W.3d 847

Movant Victor Sanchez appeals the denial of his Amended Motion to Vacate under Rule 29.15.
Movant was charged in 2006 with deviate sexual assault (class C felony) and waived the right to a jury trial without an interpreter on September 15, 2006.
An interpreter was later requested and granted for trial; bench trial occurred on January 31, 2007, resulting in a conviction and four-year sentence.
Movant appealed and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2008.
Movant filed a post-conviction motion under Rule 29.15 in 2008; an evidentiary hearing was held in December 2009 with Movant assisted by an interpreter.
The motion court denied post-conviction relief, relying on the jury waiver transcript and credibility determinations about Movant’s understanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting an interpreter at the jury waiver hearing?	Movant asserts lack of interpreter impaired understanding.	State contends Movant understood rights; no prejudice shown.	No reversible error; no ineffective assistance.

Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (credibility and defense failure analyzed in post-conviction context)
Munoz v. State, 743 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. App. 1987) (interpreter at trial not required when defendant understood proceedings)
Garces v. State, 862 S.W.2d 509 (Mo. App. 1993) (interpreter appropriateness and movant’s understanding considered)
Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (Strickland prejudice and performance standards in post-conviction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective assistance standard and prejudice prongs)
State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. banc 1993) (prejudice element in ineffective-assistance claims)