Court Opinion

ID: 9845992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:32:30.246016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.864358
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Justice,
concurring.
Because I am satisfied in this case that the state met its burden of showing that appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered by eliciting testimony from both appellant’s defense counsel and the interpreter who assisted at the guilty plea hearing, I concur in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction. I write separately, however, for two reasons.
First, I note that appellant’s guilty plea was accepted during a group plea involving several defendants, all of whom were accused of different crimes. I believe that a group guilty plea hearing is an inappropriate forum for a trial court to accept a defendant’s plea of guilty to a serious charge such as malice murder. Because of the seriousness of both the charge involved and the resulting sentence, I believe that a trial court should engage in a one-on-one colloquy with such a defendant, thereby better ensuring the constitutional integrity of the plea-making process. This is especially true in cases such as this one, involving a non-English speaking defendant, who must rely upon an interpreter to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or her, and the consequences of a guilty plea.
Second, in cases where a trial court accepts a guilty plea from a non-English speaking defendant who is assisted by an interpreter, I believe it is a good practice for the trial court to inquire on the record, at the end of the plea colloquy required by USCR 33, whether the defendant has been able to effectively communicate with the interpreter, and whether there have been any communications with the interpreter that the defendant did not understand. If this inquiry is made on the record, reviewing courts will not have to rely upon the recollections of defense attorneys and interpreters in determining whether a guilty plea was made in compliance with Boykin v. Alabama2 Instead, reviewing courts will have the benefit of a defendant’s own representation when making the relevant inquiry under Boykin, which is whether a defendant freely and voluntarily entered a guilty plea with an understanding of both the nature of the charges-*135against him or her and the consequences of the plea.3
Decided November 9, 1998.
Short & Fowler, Brian A. McDaniel, for appellant.
J. David Miller, District Attorney, Charles M. Stines, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

 Goodman v. Davis, 249 Ga. 11, 13 (287 SE2d 26) (1982).

 395 U. S. 238 (89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274) (1969).