BESIDES, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A COMMAND OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
After DR was convicted (upon his plea of guilty) of endangering the welfare of a child, DR sought to withdraw his guilty plea claiming that it hadn’t been “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently” made, because an interpreter hadn’t been present. When that motion was denied by the Nassau County District Court, DR appealed.
On its review of the record, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that when it comes to the grant or denial of such applications, the trial judge’s determination is usually accorded considerable deference. Independent of that, it could discern no irregularity, particularly given the fact that DR’s attorney had assured that court that no interpreter was needed -- because DR “could read English and that [DR] had discussed the case with counsel in English and reviewed the plea conditions in English,” and the record demonstrated that DR had a command of the English language.
Given that “waiver,” the AT2 thought that DR’s plea was entered into “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently,” and that it was thus a provident exercise of judicial discretion to deny DR’s requested relief.
Waive that one goodbye.
# # #
DECISION