Victor Ponce v. State of Indiana
9 N.E.3d 1265
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Ponce, a non-native English speaker, pled guilty to one of two cocaine-delivery counts under a plea agreement.
- At the guilty-plea hearing, an interpreter was used; Boykin rights were advised in English to the defendant and in Spanish via the interpreter.
- Years later, Ponce filed a post-conviction petition alleging the interpreter inaccurately translated his Boykin rights, making the plea not knowingly or intelligently made.
- Post-conviction court denied relief; Court of Appeals affirmed, but this Court granted transfer and reversed."
- Record showed the interpreter’s Spanish rendering of advisements was defective, while the English advisements were proper.
- Indiana has undertaken language-access efforts, including interpreter programs and standards, but that does not excuse the defective translation in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Boykin advisements were properly conveyed to Ponce. | Ponce argues the Spanish translation was inaccurate. | State contends English advisements were adequate and understood. | Plea vacated; reversible error due to inaccurate translation. |
| Whether external evidence can establish Ponce’s understanding when the plea record is defective. | Ponce’s understanding shown through post-conviction testimony and prior translator talks. | Trial counsel’s testimony insufficient to prove understanding. | State failed to prove voluntary understanding; relief warranted. |
| What is the impact of LEP language issues on due process in plea bargains? | Language-access failures undermine due process and justice. | A defendant should be held responsible for the plea if otherwise knowingly given. | Ensuring meaningful access is essential; impropriety here warrants relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (requirement that guilty plea waives three core rights with proper advisement)
- Weatherford v. State, 697 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1998) (trial court must advise Boykin rights; adequacy of advisement matters)
- Diaz v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. 2010) (language interpretation must accurately convey rights; direct translation not required if understood)
- Dewitt v. State, 755 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2001) (reversal when Boykin advisement not properly given)
- Youngblood v. State, 542 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. 1989) (burden shifts to State to show plea was voluntary if Boykin advisement was defective)