Case Title: State of Arkansas v. Agustin Moreno

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR07-327

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

se. CR 07-327
STATE OF ARKANSAS, pina Daered Oder 25,2007
APPELLANT, | AppEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

vs NO. CR-2005-622,

HON. GARY RAY COTTRELL,

AGUSTIN MORENO, JUDGE,

APPELLEE,

DISMISSED.

 

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice

‘The appellant, the State of Arkansas, appeals ftom the circuit court’s order granting
the motion to suppress of the appellee, Agustin Moreno. For its sole point on appeal, the
State argues that the circuit court erred in granting the motion to suppress because the
defendant was given valid Miranda warnings in his native tongue before he was given a
second set of warnings at the beginning of his videotaped statement, the set which was later
found to be unconstitutional. Because we hold that this is an improper state appeal, we
dismiss the appeal.

‘The underlying facts are these. On December 4, 2005, Moreno was questioned by
Crawford County Sheriff Deputy Halbert Torraca regarding events that had allegedly
‘occurred earlier in Moreno’s home. Moreno does not speak English, While he can speak

Spanish, he is unable to read it.
Additional facts were established at the October 23, 2006 suppression hearing by the
testimony of Deputy Torraca. Torraca testified that he Mirandized Moreno in Spanish at his
residence, translating it from an English Miranda waming card. While Torraca never
received any formal education on reading and writing in Spanish, he grew up speaking
Spanish as he lived with his grandparents who were Puerto Rican and could not speak any
English, Atage eleven, Torraca moved in with his mother and stepfather, a man of Mexican
descent, and both English and Spanish were spoken in that houschold. While he is
admittedly “a litle bit slow at it," Torraca testified that he can read English and transate it
into Spanish.

‘Torraca began to question Moreno regarding the allegations and Moreno started to
answer affirmatively that he had inappropriately touched his niece, a minor child, At that
time, Torraca noticed that the battery on his recording device had gone out and he decided
to place Moreno under arest and take him to the Crawford County Sheriff's Department,
‘where he had access to audio and video recording. Moreno was then placed in an interview
room at the sherif's department

Before questioning Moreno further, a videotape was started and Torraca went over
the rights form with him. Torraca had 2 copy of the English rights form and tried to explain
the rights to Moreno, who was equipped with the Spanish rights form. Moreno never
indicated that he could not understand what Torraca was explaining and signed the rights
form when asked

‘The interpreter from the Administrative Office of the Courts provided the circuit

cR07-327

 
‘court with a transcript ofthe translation of Torraca’s interview with Moreno. The transcript

provides in pertinent part:

ToRRACcA:

‘MORENO:

ToRRAca:

Moreno:

ToRRACa:

MoRENO:

ToRRaca:

Moreno:

TORRACA:

Moreno:

TORRACA:

Sorry that took awhile there are a lot of (unintelligible). Ok .. ok,
right now Iam going to re... um, I'm going to read you ...eh .. Pm
going to read you the rights again, ok? Because I want you to
understand your rights well, ok?’ Ok. And here you put
(oninteligible). Ok, before uh ... ask you questions, uh ... you ca .
you ... uh... you ha’... you have the right of to remain silent, do you
understand that?

Ushu.
‘OK? Uh... you, each thing that you says, can use it uh ... against you
in... a court of law, ok? Uh .. you have the right to consulta lawyer,
before I ask you rights. Do you understand that?

Yes

Yes? Ok, uh. ifyou don't uh... you .» ifyou want a lawyer and
and ... don't have the money for a lawyer, we can writ .. write you
down a law ... a lawyer, before I ask you rights. You do understand,
that right?

Mb-hu,

OK? Uh.... Ifyou de ... decide to uh ... to answer my questions, ok?
‘Then some eh ..ats0 .. ome time, that you decide yourself you want
a lawyer, you can stop to answer our question you can stop and eh
to wait fora lawyer. You do understand that right? Ok, uh. ok, and
here it says that uh ...uh .. Can you read Spanish?

Very litte

Very little? Ok. Here it says the place, ok. You see here that it says
place?

Yes. And here?

Here ... here goes write down, this is the name of the ... of our

cR07-327

 
‘MoRENo:

ToRRaca:

‘Moreno:

TORRACA:

Moreno:

ToRRACA:

Moreno:

TorRaca:

   

department, ok? Ok, today’s date
time is; one thirty five, ok? Uh ..
fora moment?

‘twelve, four, zero five and the
uh... do you want to read this
Let's see what it says (unintelligible) more or less.

Uh... uh... ok, you do understand your rights?

Yes, yes I understand.

(Ok, uh. alo under .. uh. nobody hasn't threatened you or
promised you nothing.

No.
(Ok, uh ... uh .. I didn’t promise you ... I haven't promised you
anything, uh ... |haven’t threatened you, so you answer my questions,
uh ... yes? Have I threatened you?

No. No.

No? Ok, uh ... [want you to sign here

Moreno did sign the form indicating that he understood his rights and continued to

make several incriminating statements during the course of the questioning by Torraca, On

October 18, 2006, Moreno filed a motion to suppress any statement that he made to Torraca

without the presence of counsel, claiming that his statements were made prior to his being

properly informed of his Miranda rights and in violation of his constitutional right to the

advice of counsel. The circuit court granted Moreno’s motion on January 26, 2007, finding

that: Moreno did not speak English with enough proficiency sufficient for him to understand

‘Miranda warnings and rights; Moreno could not, in English, have made an intelligent waiver

‘of those rights; and, the transcript ofthe interrogation showed that Torraca sufficiently filed

a cR 07-327
to advise Moreno of his Miranda rights in Spanish, The State filed a notice of appeal, which
appeal is now before this court

In its jurisdictional statement, the State argues that the instant appeal involves the
correct and uniform administration of the law because the circuit court erroneously
interpreted the law to conclude that the second of two sets of Miranda warnings given in
Spanish was inadequate to support Moreno’s waiver of his Miranda rights and there isa risk
that the circuit court’s interpretation of Ark. R. Crim. P, 16.2(¢) (2007) will be at odds with
the interpretations of other circuit courts. The State contends that the circuit court erred by
finding that Moreno did not receive proper Miranda warnings and that his waiver of those
rights was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, as the State proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that Moreno was given fll and correct warnings not only
atthe time the video recording was made, but also when he was first arrested at his residence.
Furthermore, the State alleges the circuit court erred in applying the law regarding Mivanda
‘warnings when it suppressed Moreno’s statements.

Moreno responds that the State’s arguments realistically tum on the circuit courts
application of the law under the specific facts of this case, that Moreno did not advance his
‘motion to suppress based on any new, novel, or untested legal theories, and that, for those
reasons, the instant appeal is an improper state appeal. As to the merits, Moreno contends
that the circuit court correctly decided thatthe insufficiency of Torraca’s translation of the
‘Miranda warnings into Spanish prevented Moreno from fully understanding the Miranda

rights he waived.

cR07-327

 
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Criminal 3(a)(1)_ provides that “[ajn
interlocutory appeal on behalf of the state may be taken only from a pretrial order in a felony
prosecution which (1) grants a motion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 162 to suppress seized
evidence[” Ark. R. App. P—Crim. 3()(1) (2006). Ie further states:

(0 When a notice of appeal is filed pursuant to either subsection (a) or

(0) ofthis rule, the clerk of the court in which the prosecution sought to be

appealed took place shall immediately cause a transcript ofthe tral record to

be made and transmitted to the attomey general, or delivered to the

prosecuting attomey, to be by him delivered to the attorney general. Ifthe

attomey general, on inspecting the tral record, is satisfied that error has been
committed to the prejudice of the state, and that the comect and uniform

«administration of the criminal law requites review by the Supreme Court, he may

take the appeal by filing the transcript of the trial record with the clerk of the

Supreme Court within sixty (60) days after the filing of the notice of appeal.

‘Atk, R. Crim. P, 3(¢) (emphasis added).

This court has frequently observed that there i a significant and inherent difference
between appeals brought by criminal defendants and those brought on behalf of the State
See State v. Nichols, 364 Ark. 1, 216 S.W.3d 114 (2005). The former is a matter of right,
whereas the latter is not derived from the Constitution, nor is it a matter of right, but is
granted pursuant to Ark. R. App. P—Crim. 3. See id. We accept appeals by the State when
cour holding would be important to the correet and uniform administration of the eriminal
law. See id.

[As a matter of practice, this court has only taken appeals which are narrow in scope

and involve the interpretation of law. See State v. Pittman, 360 Ark. 273, 200 S.W.3d 893

(2005). We do not permit State appeals merely to demonstrate the fact thatthe circuit court

6 cR07-327
erred. See id, Thus, where an appeal does not present an issue of interpretation of the
criminal rules with widespread ramifications, this court has held that such an appeal docs not
involve the correct and uniform administration of the law. See id. Similarly, where the
resolution of the issue on appeal tus on the facts unique to the case or involves a mixed
‘question of law and fact, the appeal is not one requiring interpretation of our criminal rules
‘with widespread ramification, and the matter is not appealable by the State. See id. Finally,
where an appeal raises an issue of the application, not interpretation, of a criminal rule or
statutory provision, it does not involve the correct and uniform administration ofthe eriminal
law and is not appealable by the State under Ruule 3. See id

Here, the State specifically concludes in its brief that the circuit court “erred in
pplying the aw regarding Miranda warnings.” The State does not allege thatthe citeuit court
misinterpreted the law; rather, the State argues that the circuit court erred in finding that
Torraca did not adequately translate the Miranda warnings in such a way that Moreno fully
understood what rights he was being asked to waive, The State does not argue how the
Circuit court misinterpreted the law; instead, it attempts to prove how the facts in this case
are more analogous to cases that the State finds more favorable. In order to make a ruling.
‘on Moreno’s motion to suppress, the circuit court was required to review the facts and
circumstances surrounding the Miranda warnings given to him and the waiver of his rights

While the State, in its reply, contends that the question presented to this cout is
“whether non-English language Miranda warnings are sufficient if they convey the esence

ofthe Miranda rights and, alternatively, whether a previous giving of Miranda warnings in

 

cR 07-327
4 suspect's native language is sufficient to supplant a later, arguably flawed, giving of those
wamings,” both suggested questions presuppose that the wamings given in this case did
properly convey the esence of the Miranda rights, which the circuit court did not find, and
that a previous set of warnings were given fully inthe suspects native language. Those are
‘both large presumptions and would require an intensive factual investigation by this court

Indeed, this appeal is not one requiring interpretation of our eriminal rules; instead,
it raises issues involving the application of our rules to the specific facts ofthis cae. It does
not appear that a review of this appeal would have widespread ramifications on the
interpretation of our criminal law. As such, this appeal clearly does not involve the correct
and uniform administration ofthe criminal law and does not fall within the confines of Ark
R. App. P-Crim. 3. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

R 07-327