Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06270/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Hung Chephi Nguyen
Appellant
Dan Reynolds
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Scates Court of Appeals Tenth Cir::u.it 

HUNG CHEPHI NGUYEN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v . 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAN REYNOLDS ; ATTORNEY GENERAL,ROBERT 

H. HENRY, 

Re s pondents - Appellees . 

FEB 12 199·1 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

~ Clerk 

) 

) 

) No. 90-6270 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-835-A) 

) (W.D. Oklahoma) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Nguyen appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus 

petition. 

pauperis. 

* 

We grant Mr. Nguyen permission to proceed in forma 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Nguyen is a state prisoner as a result of entering guilty 

pleas to an Information charging three separate counts of robbery 

with a firearm. Thereafter Mr. Nguyen filed an appeal with the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals challenging his sentence which 

was affirmed. Mr. Nguyen then unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in the state court. 

Mr. Nguyen filed his prose habeas petition in federal court 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attacking his conviction. He alleged he 

"was denied an interpreter" and received "ineffective assistance 

of counsel." The district court, in a Memorandum Opinion, denied 

relief after concluding (1) the assistance of an interpreter was 

unnecessary and Mr. Nguyen's guilty pleas were voluntary and 

intelligent; (2) the absence of an interpreter at the plea and 

sentencing proceedings did not render counsel's representation 

deficient as it was clear the services of an interpreter were 

unnecessary; and (3) Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements 

of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or otherwise 

show his counsel's representation was unconstitutional. 

Mr. Nguyen appeals the decision of the district court raising 

the same two issues as raised in the district court and 

additionally complains he was improperly denied an evidentiary 

hearing. 

We have reviewed the transcript of the proceedings where Mr. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 2 
Nguyen entered his guilty pleas. These proceedings fail to reveal 

Mr. Nguyen had any difficulty with the English language. In 

addition, during the post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Nguyen's 

counsel, a public defender, filed an affidavit stating she had 

represented Mr. Nguyen during the original proceedings and that in 

her opinion Mr. Nguyen had sufficient command of the English 

language to both communicate and comprehend it, and further, that 

an interpreter was unnecessary. 

Having considered Mr. Nguyen's arguments and the record on 

appeal, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's 

well written and thorough Memorandum Opinion entered on August 9, 

1990, a copy thereof being attached. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 3 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR FI L-£ D 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKI.AHOMA AUG 0~ i9$0 

C ROetRr L£RK, U. S / · Dt NN1s BY . isrF11c r cou 

HUNG CHEPHI NGUYEN, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

. ..__ . It_ o~Fn; ) 

"'oi;ii;y--C-~ 

Petitioner, 

V. 

DAN W. REYNOLDS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

CIV-~~835-A 

JJ{Jf.fif ""rrr:, 

u .. ~ ,_ It/) •. ii 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This case has been filed in forma pauperis by the Petitioner, a state prisoner, to 

challenge his conviction in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (CRF 87-

5308) on a three count Information, each count charging the offense of robbery with 

firearms. 28 U.S.C. §2254. The Petitioner contends constitutional errors occurred in 

state proceedings based on the following grounds: 

Ground One: Trial court's failure to provide Petitioner with an interpreter 

continueously (sic) through out (sic) the proceedings inhibited Petitioner's 

comprehension and rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair. 

Ground Two: Ineffective assistance of counsel on the trial level, by trial 

counsel's decision not to have an interpreter throughout the proceedings. 

The Respondent has filed a Response to the Petition urging that the Petitioner 1s 

procedurally barred from presenting this case because of his failure to bring these claims 

to the attention of the Oklahoma courts on direct appeal, and the Petitioner has filed a 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 4 
"Rebuttal." The issues presented by the submissions of the parties are legal in nature and 

they can be resolved by reference to the state court record which has been filed herein 

\ 

without receiving additional evidence. Therefore, the Court finds and concludes as 

follows: 

I 

The judgment and sentence under attack was entered on January 27, 1988 

following the Petitioner's pleas of guilty to an Information charging three separate counts 

of robbery with firearms. The Petitioner received two sentences of 33 years 

imprisonment plus another sentence of 34 years, and the punishment for each of the 

offenses was a maximum of life imprisonment and a minimum of five years. The 

Petitioner's pleas of guilty are reflected in his answers in the Summary of Facts form and 

in the transcript of the pleas of guilty. The colloquy between the Petitioner and the 

court indicates the Petitioner's understanding of the offenses and his waiver of all 

constitutional rights. 

Following the entry of the state court judgment, the Petitioner filed an application 

to withdraw his guilty pleas because the sentence was excessive. The trial court denied 

the application, an appeal was filed resulting in an order of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of the State of Oklahoma (Case No. C-88-301) finding that the sentence was 

assessed within the statutory limits, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and 

the sentence was not excessive in contemplation of the law. The Court of Criminal 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 5 
Appeals further held that the record established a sufficient factual basis for the pleas of 

guilty. 

\ 

On October 30, 1989 the Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief 

in the state court that included the claims urged in this petition regarding the failure of 

the state trial court to provide an interpreter at the sentencing hearing. In response to 

this application the attorney for the Petitioner filed an affidavit that includes the 

following statements: 

* * * 

3. That she represented Hung Chephi Nguygen (sic) at a preliminary 

hearing, plea of guilty and sentencing hearing in Oklahoma County, Case 

No. CRF-87-5308. 

4. That an interpreter was retained to assist Mr. Nguygen (sic) and his 

attorney at the preliminary hearing on October 14, 1987. 

5. That this attorney observed that Mr. Nguygen (sic) never asked the 

interpreter to assist him with any portion of the testimony by witnesses at 

the preliminary hearing, in fact all questions by Mr. Nguygen (sic) were 

directed to his attorney. 

6. That it appeared to this attorney that Mr. Nguygen (sic) had 

sufficient command of the English language to both speak the language 

and understand it. 

7. That this attorney did not believe it was necessary to retain an 

interpreter to assist Mr. Nguygen (sic) at the plea of guilty or the 

sentencing hearing, and therefore, did not do so. 

(p. 111, Criminal Appeal - Original Record) 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 6 
Upon review of the submissions of the parties, the state trial court denied the 

application for post-conviction relief. This order was affirmed by the Court of Criminal 

Appeals on April 27, 1990 (Case No. PC 90-0290) wherein the court found that the 

Petitioner had failed to allege the interpreter issue on his previous direct appeal and that 

further review is barred under the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act. 22 O.S. 

1981, §1086; Coleman v. State. 693 P.2d 4, 5 (Okl.Cr. 1984); Ellington v. Crisp. 547 

P.2d 391, 392-393 (Okl.Cr. 1976). 

II 

Petitioner claims that the plea of guilty proceedings were "fundamentally unfair" 

because he was not provided an interpreter, and that an interpreter had been provided 

at his preliminary hearing and arraignment. The fundamental test for the validity of a 

guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among 

courses of action open to the defendant. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 

(1970); Boykin v. Alabama. 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969). In reviewing the record in this 

case, the Court notes the affidavit of Petitioner's state trial counsel and the statement 

that Petitioner never asked the interpreter to assist him with any portion of the testimony 

at the preliminary hearing and that the attorney believed that the assistance of an 

interpreter at the plea of guilty or sentencing proceedings was unnecessary. Further, in 

reviewing the transcript of the plea of guilty the Court finds evidence of Petitioner's 

appreciation and understanding of the proceeding in responding to questions by the court 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 7 
including his age, date of birth, medication which Petitioner identified as tetracycline, and 

his constitutional rights. The Petitioner responded without equivocation to these 

questions and expressed his understanding that he could be sentenced to any sentence 

within the minimum and maximum statutory limits, under what has been described as 

a "blind" plea. These circumstances present no error in the failure of the state trial court 

to furnish the Petitioner with an interpreter during the plea of guilty and sentencing 

proceedings in the absence of a request or cogent showing of need for this service. 

Further, the discretion of the state court has been appropriately exercised and its 

determination regarding the appointment or qualification of an interpreter under these 

circumstances is a matter that has doubtful constitutional significance. Soap v. Carter, 

632 F.2d 872, 875 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939 (1981); Cervantes v. 

Cox, 350 F.2d 855 (10th Cir 1965); Hernandez v. Wainwright, 634 F.Supp. 241 (S.D.Fla. 

1986), affd, Hernandez v. Wainwright, 813 F.2d 409 (11th Cir. 1987). 

Petitioner also claims ineffective assistance of counsel because an interpreter was 

not present at the plea of guilty and sentencing proceeding. Petitioner was represented 

by counsel at all proceedings, entered his pleas of guilty upon the advice of counsel, and, 

thus, the voluntariness of the pleas depends on whether counsel's advice to enter the 

pleas was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. 

McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770-771 (1970). The Petitioner does not 

challenge the advice that he received from counsel that impinges upon the voluntary and 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 8 
\ 

intelligent character of his guilty pleas. The Supreme Court adopted a two part standard 

for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668 (1984) requiring that Petitioner must show that counsel's representation fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have 

been different. Also see Coleman v. Brown, 802 F.2d 1227, 1233-1235 (10th Cir. 1986), 

cert. denied, 482 U.S. 909 (1987). 

The professionalism and effectiveness of the Petitioner's attorney is reflected in her 

request for appointment of an interpreter at the initial stages of the proceeding, but it 

became clear that continued representation of the Petitioner did not require the services 

of an interpreter, and therefore the expenses of this service to the state were rendered 

unnecessary and were discontinued. The judgment of counsel is confirmed by the 

transcript of the plea of guilty proceedings. This transcript does not reflect that any 

prejudice accrued to the Petitioner, assuming that an interpreter would have been helpful 

to him, aside from his attorney's advice. There is no indication that Petitioner would not 

have pleaded guilty, would have insisted on going to trial and counsel's decision to waive 

the interpreter did not affect the outcome or validity of the pleas of guilty. The 

requirement of showing prejudice in a challenge to validity of guilty pleas because of 

ineffective assistance of counsel is necessary to preserve fundamental interests in the 

finality of guilty pleas since it is rare that unfair procedures result in the conviction of 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 9 
an innocent Petitioner. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979). 

Therefore, it is the Court's opinion that the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements 

of Strickland v. Washington, supra, nor has he shown that the attorney's representation 

was unconstitutional under the Sixth amendment. 

Accordingly, judgment will issue dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

and the claims asserted therein. It is further the opinion of the Court that the claims 

presented by the Petitioner are not of constitutional significance or substantial merit and 

that the Petition is frivolous and not presented in good faith. Therefore, any appeal in 

forma pauperis is hereby denied. Fed. R. App. P. 24. 

r- . Entered this ~ day of August, 1990. 

G-t-~~ 

WAYNE E~ ALLEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6270 Document: 010110099938 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 10