Gonzales, Pablo Hernandez v. State

Affirmed and Opinion filed November 27, 2002 Affirmed and Opinion filed November 27, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals _______________ NO. 14-02-00074-CR _______________ PABLO HERNANDEZ GONZALES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 860,426 O P I N I O N Appellant, Pablo Hernandez Gonzales, pled no contest to the charge of murder. Before entering a plea, the record reflects he was properly admonished regarding his right to an interpreter. The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty-five years= confinement. On appeal, he contends the absence of an interpreter, sworn under oath, to translate all proceedings constitutes denial of his right to confront witnesses, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, ' 10 of the Texas Constitution, and Section 38.30 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We affirm. Background Appellant, a Harris County resident and Guatemalan national, drank liquor and argued with friends about who had the nicest home in Guatemala. Appellant referred to decedent=s home as trash. The following afternoon decedent hit appellant in the mouth. Appellant went to his apartment, got a knife, and returned to confront the decedent. After a hostile word exchange, appellant stabbed decedent. Discussion All persons accused of a crime have a constitutional and statutory right to confront adverse witnesses. See U.S. Const. amend. VI.; Tex. Const. Art. I, ' 10; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 38.30 (Vernon Supp. 2000). This right encompasses the more narrow right to have trial proceedings interpreted in a language one can understand. Baltierra v. State, 586 S.W.2d 553, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Appellant attacks the validity of his conviction, asserting that the failure to appoint an interpreter prevented him from intelligently and voluntarily waiving his right to confrontation. The record shows that prior to entering his plea, appellant executed a document entitled Admonishments. The pertinent portion reads: I read and write/understand the Spanish language; the foregoing Admonishments, Statements, and Waivers as well as the attached written Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial confession, were read by me or were read to me and explained to me in that language by my attorney and/or an intrepreter, namely Ana Maria Koeney, before I signed them, and I consulted fully with my attorney before entering this plea. The record reflects the court properly admonished appellant before taking his plea. Nonetheless, appellant argues that an interpreter was not provided during his trial proceeding. Appellant, however, failed to object. In the absence of any objection, appellant has failed to preserve error. See Saunders v. State, 49 S.W.3d 536, 541 (Tex. App.CEastland 2001, pet. ref=d). The clerk=s record reflects that an interpreter was present when appellant signed the Admonishments. While the record from trial proceedings does not affirmatively reflect the presence of an interpreter, we cannot presume, absent firm proof to the contrary, that the trial court abrogated its duty. Reyna v. State, 993 S.W.2d 142, 145 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1999, no pet.). The record on appeal shows that appellant did not object to the absence of an interpreter. Because we cannot presume that the trial court abrogated its duty to provide an interpreter, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court. /s/ Charles W. Seymore Justice Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 27, 2002. Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman. Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).