Court Opinion

ID: 9530158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:49.367599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:00.899935
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
dissenting:
I dissent because I do not think that Judge Breen was guilty of any abuse of discretion in this case. The district judge advisedly made the informed observation that Langarica, who does not speak English, was “confused about probation availability.” The judge further noted that Langarica knew that he was facing more serious charges if the guilty plea were set aside so that Langarica had “no motivation to fabricate under these circumstances.”
The district judge also concluded, based on his evaluation of Langarica’s testimony and other factors in the record, that “counsel was ineffective concerning . . . one vital area,” namely, counsel’s imparting to Langarica an incorrect belief relating to “the Court’s powers concerning probation and sentencing in drug trafficking cases.” The district judge took into consideration defense counsel’s inadequate argument at the sentencing hearing. The inadequacy of counsel in this case was, according to the district judge, farther “complicated by the language barrier.” All
*936of the foregoing brought Judge Breen to the reasoned conclusion that the proceedings were “confusing and misleading” to Langarica. I do not see how we can say that Langarica was not confused or misled when the judge who was sitting there says that he was. I see no breach of discretion on the part of the trial judge and would uphold the judgment of the trial court.