ROBERTO LARIAS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions where trial judge properly determined defendant could participate without an interpreter based on his fluent English and extensive courtroom colloquies, but reversed cost assessment against indigent defendant who received no notice or hearing.
A trial judge's decision that a non-testifying defendant was capable of understanding and participating in trial without an interpreter is supported by record evidence including the defendant's fluent English and extensive courtroom communications, and a defendant who offers favorable testimony through a court witness is not entitled to opening and closing arguments.
[1] A trial court's determination that a defendant is capable of understanding and participating in trial without an interpreter is supported by the record when the defendant…
[2] An indigent defendant's costs cannot be assessed without notice to the defendant and an opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberto Larias was convicted after trial where the judge determined he did not need an interpreter despite his apparent Spanish-language background, a…
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 Notice And Hearing For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the defendant’s convictions upon a .holding that (1) the trial judge’s decision that the non-testifying defendant was quite capable of understanding and participating in the trial without the assistance of an interpreter is amply supported by the record which, inter alia, includes (a) the opinion of an interpreter that the defendant spoke “just about perfect English,” (b) extensive colloquies in English between the court and the defendant, and (c) the complete acquiescence of defense counsel in the decision not to appoint an interpreter for the defendant, compare, e.g., Suarez v. United States, 309 F. 2d 709 (5th Cir.1962) and Bolender v. State, 422 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1982) with Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and (2) the defendant's claim that his counsel was wrongfully deprived of making the opening and closing final arguments to the jury is without merit because the defendant concededly offered testimony favorable to himself through a court witness, thus dis-entitling himself to this order of argument, see McAvoy v. State, 501 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bentley v. State, 422 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
We reverse the imposition of costs against this indigent defendant because he was given neither notice that costs were being sought nor an opportunity to be heard on that issue. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Convictions and sentences affirmed; order assessing costs reversed and remanded to trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gesner Pierre v. State, 597 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…e proceedings because he was able to understand what was being said in court. We are therefore unable to say, as urged, that any fundamental error was committed by the absence of an interpreter for some parts of the proceedings. See Larias v. State, 528 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Third, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case because the state fail…
-
Vazquez v. State, 653 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…rect appeal. They are not appropriately raised in a rule 3.850 proceeding, which is a collateral attack on the original judgment. Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1993); Rivera v. Dugger, 629 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1993). See also Larias v. State, 528 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Quintana v. State, 520 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Vazquez will not be allowed a [*487] second appeal under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. AFFIRMED. PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Santisteban v. State, 306 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…his record as Santisteban unequivocally stated that he understood everything that occurred in the trial and the trial court provided an interpreter to translate his testimony. See Pierre v. State, 597 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Larias v. State, 528 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We write further to address Santisteban’s request that this Court promulgate a rule “that all trial judges in this District inquire of every defendant and their attorney, at the earliest judicial proceeding, whether the defendant…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Bolender v. State, 422 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1982)
- Suarez v. United States, 309 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Modesto Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- McAVOY v. State, 501 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bentley v. State, 422 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)