CASTRO JESUS FLORES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Castro Jesus Flores appeals his convictions for armed robbery, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, challenging the trial court's failure to appoint an interpreter at pre-trial suppression proceedings and its refusal to sentence him as a youthful offender. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error on either ground.
The court held that under Florida law, the use of an interpreter during trial or pre-trial proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and that Flores was not prejudiced by the absence of an interpreter at the preliminary hearing. The court also held that Flores' simultaneous convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault statutorily excluded him from mandatory classification as a youthful offender.
[1] The decision to appoint an interpreter during pre-trial proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and reversible error requires a showing of prejudic…
[2] A defendant convicted of armed robbery and aggravated assault is excluded from mandatory classification as a youthful offender.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“whether the use of an interpreter is required during trial or certain pre-trial proceedings in order to preserve the defendant's right to due process is within the sound discretion of the trial judge”
Establishes the standard that interpreter appointment is discretionary with the trial judge, not mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlores was convicted by jury of armed robbery, illegal firearm possession, and two counts of aggravated assault. He received a life sentence for the r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Castro Jesus Flores appeals from simultaneous jury convictions of armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony1 and two counts of aggravated assault, and from sentences of life term for the robbery conviction and consecutive five-year terms for the aggravated assault offenses.
Flores first claims as error failure of the trial court to appoint an interpreter during the pre-trial proceedings on his motion to suppress his confession. Under Florida law, whether the use of an interpreter is required during trial or certain pre-trial proceedings in order to preserve the defendant’s right to due process is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See, e. g., Kelly v. State, 96 Fla. 348, 118 So. 1 (1928).2 We find no reversible error as the record does not demonstrate that Flores was prejudiced by the absence of an interpreter at the preliminary hearing. Cf. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970) (denial of right to counsel at preliminary hearing may be harmless error). We also reject Flores’ second argument and find that the trial court committed no error in failing to sentence Flores as a youthful offender under Section 958.04(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Flores’ simultaneous convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault exclude him from mandatory classification as a youthful offender by virtue of Section 958.-04(2)(a). State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1981).
Affirmed.
. We do not pass on the conviction for the illegal possession of a firearm since it was not presented for our review. See, e. g., Wooten v. State, 404 So. 2d 1072, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Monroe v. State, 396 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
. We find Florida law in this respect identical to that of the federal courts prior to the adoption of the Interpreter’s Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1827 (1978). See United States v. Martinez, 616 F. 2d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994, 101 S.Ct. 1694, 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981).
“The use of courtroom interpreters involves a balancing of the defendant’s constitutional rights to confrontation and due process against the public’s interest in economic administration of criminal law. . . . That balancing is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, reversible only on a showing of abuse. Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86, 91, 27 S.Ct. 456, 457, 51 L.Ed. 722 (1907); Hardin v. United States, 324 F. 2d 553 (5th Cir. 1963); Suarez v. United States, 309 F. 2d 709 (5th Cir. 1962); Pietrzak v. United States, 188 F. 2d 418 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 824, 72 S.Ct. 44, 96 L.Ed. 623 (1951).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 182 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…r prior to cross-examination of the second victim. [*863] “The use of an interpreter at trial is a matter within the trial court’s discretion.” Fernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 155, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citations omitted); see also Flores v. State, 406 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“Under Florida law, whether the use of an interpreter is required during trial or certain, pre-trial proceedings in order to preserve the defendant’s right to due process is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).…
-
Evans v. State, 427 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1981), under either of the felonies, Abram v. State, 408 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1981), notwithstanding that the convictions arise from a single criminal episode. Barnhill v. State, 406 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1981); Flores v. State, 406 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Affirmed.…
-
Calana-Reinoso v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ffirm but remand for entry of an amended order of revocation of community control. Denial of the Request for an Interpreter We review the denial of a request for the services of an interpreter under an abuse of discretion standard. Flores v. State, 406 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339, 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (noting: “We emphasize, as we must, that the decision to appoint an interpreter in accordance with section 90.606, Florida Statutes (1981), is a matter largely within the…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1970)
- Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1907)
- State v. Goodson, 403 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1981)
- United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 450 U.S. 994 (U.S. 1981)
- Louisiana v. Gary W., 450 U.S. 994 (U.S. 1981)
- Suarez v. United States, 309 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Hardin v. United States, 324 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1963)
- United States v. Martinez, 616 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Dalton Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 342 U.S. 824 (U.S. 1951)
- Monroe v. State, 396 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)