Title: Cruz v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 63, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 12, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERTO CRUZ,
 
§
§
No. 63, 2010
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
Court Below:  Superior Court
v.
§
of the State of Delaware,
§
in and for New Castle County
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Cr. No. 0708039250
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  July 28, 2010
Decided:  August 12, 2010
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 12  day of August, 2010, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
th
appears to the Court that:
1) Roberto Cruz appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
He argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not have a
translator during the plea colloquy.  We find no merit to this appeal and affirm.
2) In 2009, Cruz faced two sets of charges, which included criminal
impersonation, possession of narcotics, trafficking in cocaine, third degree assault, and
two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.  He reached a plea bargain and, on
2
April 6, 2009, he pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine and possession of heroin.  Two
weeks later, Cruz filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, claiming that he was
coerced and threatened.  On June 9, 2009, without having conducted an evidentiary
hearing, the Superior Court denied the motion.
3)   In November 2009, Cruz moved for reconsideration of his motion to
withdraw, alleging for the first time that he does not speak English.  The Superior
Court conducted an evidentiary hearing in January 2010.  Cruz testified, with an
interpreter, that a friend wrote the letters he sent to the court, and that he simply copied
what the friend wrote so that the letters would be in his handwriting.  Cruz also
testified that, although he spoke English with the judge during the initial plea colloquy,
he did not understand everything.  The Presentence Officer, who interviewed Cruz
while preparing the Presentence Report, testified that he had no trouble communicating
with Cruz in English.  During the interview, Cruz never said he did not understand and
he did not ask for an interpreter.
4) The Superior Court denied Cruz’s motion for reconsideration from the bench
at the conclusion of the hearing.  The trial court noted that the motion was untimely;
that Cruz’s initial letters to the court never mentioned a language problem; and that
both the Presentence Officer and the judge who accepted Cruz’s plea were able to
communicate with Cruz in English without any apparent difficulty.  Cruz contends that
Cf.  Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1362 (Del. 1992).
1
3
the decision should be reversed because he is unable to understand English.  The trial
court found, as a matter of fact, that he could, and we find no abuse of discretion.1
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice