Martinez, Erick

9/3/2026

PD-0266-26

“The Court of Appeals erred by failing to consider the trial court’s duty to inquire as to whether an interpreter was needed to protect the Appellant.”

Martinez pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and was placed on deferred. He had an interpreter but answered the judge in English. His defense counsel said, “He speaks pretty good English” and had the interpreter there “just . . . to be sure.” A year and half later, the State moved to adjudicate. The trial court held a hearing with the same defense counsel but without an interpreter. At one point, the trial court asked Martinez if he waived the reading of the motion, and Martinez said, “I don’t understand it. I don’t get it.” When asked again, he said, “I don’t even know what you’re saying, sir.” When asked whether he would like to waive the reading, Martinez said, “I waive,” prompting the following: 
COURT: You’ll waive it?
MARTINEZ: What? I don’t understand. Can I get a translation?
COURT: A translation?
MARTINEZ: Yeah. 
DEFENSE COUNSEL: You don’t know the words?
MARTINEZ: I don’t speak English like that.
COURT: You don’t speak English like that? Well, how do you speak it?
MARTINEZ: I don’t—
COURT: You can give up your right to have me read this aloud to you, or if you—
MARTINEZ: You can read it. 
The hearing continued, and Martinez answered questions responsively in English. No one objected to the lack of an interpreter. Witnesses testified about new offenses and technical violations, and he was adjudicated and sentenced to 50 years.
   On appeal, Martinez argued the trial court erred in failing to appoint an interpreter. The court of appeals held that, on the record before it, the judge acted within its discretion in determining that Martinez understood English well enough. Martinez never identified any testimony he could not understand nor alleged that he could not communicate with counsel. The court noted the trial court interacted with Martinez in person and could better observe his level of comprehension and that Martinez still could establish his claim on a writ.
   Martinez contends that when, as here, there are circumstances raising an issue that a defendant cannot understand the proceedings, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to inquire into his ability to understand. He points to the exchange above but also a previous order finding that appointment of an interpreter was necessary. He contends the hearing was “woefully insufficient to determine the abilities of an accused” to understand the proceedings.