ERLIN RAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 reversed defendant's sentence for DUI causing serious bodily injury because trial court failed to appoint an interpreter at sentencing despite defendant's documented language barrier and prior use of interpreter at trial and pretrial proceedings.
A trial court commits fundamental error by sentencing a non-English-speaking defendant without an interpreter, even if defense counsel fails to request one, when the court previously appointed an interpreter for earlier proceedings.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error requiring reversal when it sentences a non-English-speaking defendant without an interpreter, even absent a defense request, if th…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[W]e hold that it was reversible error in this case for the court to fail to appoint an interpreter at the sentencing proceeding even though defense counsel failed to raise the issue at that hearing. Once the trial court agreed [appellant] had a language problem and appointed an interpreter for the plea hearing, fundamental fairness ... requires an interpreter be appointed for sentencing as well.”
Court's holding on the fundamental error standard for sentencing without interpreter
Appellant, a Honduran national with very broken English, was charged with DUI causing serious bodily injury and property damage, and driving without 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 Right To Interpreter cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury and property damage, and with driving without a valid driver’s license. Appellant is from Honduras and speaks very broken English, and he was provided with an interpreter at the pretrial hearing, jury selection, and the trial, but not at the sentencing hearing. At sentencing, defense counsel told the court that their interpreter was not able to come, and did not ask for a replacement. The state agrees with appellant that the trial court committed fundamental error by sentencing appellant without the aid of an interpreter, as the courts have similarly concluded in Monte v. State, 443 So.2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), Quintana v. State, 520 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); and Benitez v. State, 57 So.3d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “[W]e hold that it was reversible error in this case for the court to fail to appoint an interpreter at the sentencing proceeding *531even though defense counsel failed to raise the issue at that hearing. Once the trial court agreed [appellant] had a language problem and appointed an interpreter for the plea hearing, fundamental fairness ... requires an interpreter be appointed for sentencing as well[.]” Monte, 443 So.2d at 342.
We agree and reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing with the assistance of a qualified interpreter.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Modesto Monte v. State, 443 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Quintana v. State, 520 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Sigifredo Benitez v. State, 57 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)