Court Opinion

ID: 9397782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 14:05:37.201297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.628450
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MAY 19, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                               NO. 2022-CA-0779-MR

MANUEL CRESPO                                                        APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM HART CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE CHARLES C. SIMMS, III, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 16-CR-00027

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ECKERLE AND LAMBERT,
JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Manuel Crespo appeals from orders of the circuit

court which denied his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and denied his motion for expert funding.

We find no error and affirm.
                       FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                On February 13, 2016, Appellant, crashed his vehicle into another

vehicle. Appellant was alone in his vehicle, but there were four people in the other

vehicle. Two of the four passengers in the other vehicle were killed. Appellant

was intoxicated at the time.

                On March 1, 2016, a grand jury indicted Appellant on two counts of

wanton murder,1 three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree,2 and a

number of various misdemeanors. Appellant does not speak English, but was

accompanied by a Spanish language interpreter at all times during the underlying

proceedings. Appellant was also represented at trial by an attorney from the

Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), Lucrecia Hudson-Diaz, who spoke fluent

Spanish.

                On March 7, 2017, Appellant entered a guilty plea in which he would

serve forty years in prison. He was sentenced in accordance with this plea one

month later. On December 11, 2017, Appellant, pro se, filed the underlying RCr

11.42 motion. This motion was supplemented multiple times by appointed

attorneys from the DPA. Again, Appellant was provided an interpreter at all times.

One argument raised in the RCr 11.42 motion was that he was denied effective

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 507.020.
2
    KRS 508.060.

                                               -2-
assistance of counsel because Spanish was his second language and he was not a

fluent speaker. Instead, his native language was a regional language called Nawat.

Appellant was eventually provided a Spanish language interpreter and a Nawat

language interpreter.

             A hearing on the RCr 11.42 motion was held on March 9, 2022. The

motion was denied on May 17, 2022. This appeal followed.

                                     ANALYSIS

             Appellant’s first argument on appeal is that he did not receive

effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to investigate his

language background and determine that a Nawat interpreter was required. He

claims that his rudimentary knowledge of Spanish caused him to not understand

the consequences of his guilty plea.

             To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant

must show two things:

             First, the defendant must show that counsel’s
             performance was deficient. This requires showing that
             counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not
             functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by
             the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show
             that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
             This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so
             serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial
             whose result is reliable.

                                          -3-
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d

674 (1984). “[T]he proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably

effective assistance.” Id.

                      An error by counsel, even if professionally
               unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the
               judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no
               effect on the judgment. The purpose of the Sixth
               Amendment guarantee of counsel is to ensure that a
               defendant has the assistance necessary to justify reliance
               on the outcome of the proceeding. Accordingly, any
               deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial
               to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance
               under the Constitution.

Id. at 691-92, 104 S. Ct. at 2066-67 (citations omitted). “It is not enough for the

defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of

the proceeding.” Id. at 693, 104 S. Ct. at 2067. “The defendant must show that

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the

result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.

Ct. at 2068.

               Here, the trial court held that Appellant was fluent in Spanish and did

not require a Nawat interpreter. The court found that Appellant had entered into

the United States in 1997, when he was fifteen years old. From that point on, he

has spoken primarily Spanish. This includes communicating with his coworkers,

girlfriend, and two children. Appellant testified that he had not encountered

                                           -4-
anyone speaking Nawat since coming to the United States. In addition, his trial

counsel testified during the RCr 11.42 hearing that she and Appellant were able to

communicate with each other using Spanish and that she had no concerns that he

was unable to understand her. Appellant’s trial attorney also stated this on the

record during Appellant’s guilty plea colloquy in 2017. In addition, during his

testimony at the RCr 11.42 hearing, Appellant testified that he was able to

communicate with his trial counsel. Finally, the court took into consideration that

none of the multiple attorneys or Spanish language interpreters that were involved

with Appellant during his trial indicated to the court that Appellant was having

difficulties understanding Spanish.

             We believe that the trial court did not err in finding trial counsel was

effective. We agree that Appellant was able to understand the court proceedings

utilizing Spanish language interpreters and the evidence presented at the RCr 11.42

hearing overwhelmingly supports this conclusion.

             Appellant also argues that the court erred in considering the political

makeup of the county when determining that Appellant received effective

assistance. After discussing the overwhelming evidence against Appellant, the

court discussed the fact that Hart County was a conservative county, that President

                                         -5-
Donald Trump3 was due to be inaugurated around the time of the trial, and that the

jury might have had a poor reception to Appellant because of his immigration

status. Appellant claims that considering a potential jury’s political leanings was

inappropriate and requires his conviction to be vacated or requires a new decision

on the RCr 11.42 motion without the political considerations.

              We do not believe the trial court’s political discussion requires a

reversal of the order on appeal. This was just one factor out of many that the trial

court considered when determining that trial counsel was not ineffective.

Ultimately, Appellant was facing life in prison for killing two people, but trial

counsel was able to negotiate a forty-year sentence instead. This was a beneficial

plea bargain for Appellant and trial counsel was not ineffective for allowing

Appellant to enter into the agreement.

              Appellant’s final argument on appeal is that the trial court should have

granted a motion granting funds for Appellant to hire an expert witness to testify at

the RCr 11.42 hearing. The expert witness was to be a linguistics expert who

would have testified that Appellant may have been able to speak Spanish, but

could not fully understand it. The expert would also have testified that Appellant

3
 The court mentioned that Appellant was an illegal immigrant and President Trump had a
proclivity for talking poorly about illegal immigrants.

                                            -6-
could have been pretending to fully understand the Spanish language in order to

better fit in.

                 In determining whether an indigent defendant is entitled
                 to funding for an expert witness . . . a trial court must
                 consider 1) whether the request has been pleaded with
                 requisite specificity; and 2) whether funding for the
                 particularized assistance is reasonably necessary; 3)
                 while weighing relevant due process considerations. A
                 trial court’s denial of a request for funds is reviewed for
                 abuse of discretion.

Tunstull v. Commonwealth, 337 S.W.3d 576, 587 (Ky. 2011) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

                 The trial court did not abuse its discretion here. The court believed

that Spanish became Appellant’s primary language once he immigrated to the

United States in the late 1990s and integrated into the Spanish speaking

community in which he was living. The evidence contained in the record supports

a finding that Appellant can speak and understand Spanish. A linguistics expert

was not necessary.

                                      CONCLUSION

                 Based on the foregoing, we affirm. Appellant received effective

assistance of counsel and was not entitled to public funds to pay for a linguistics

expert.

                                             -7-
          ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Whitney B. Browning      Daniel J. Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky      Attorney General of Kentucky

                         Joseph A. Beckett
                         Assistant Attorney General
                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                        -8-