Commonwealth v. Tavares

The defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the judge abused his discretion when he denied the motion. The defendant claims that, because he required the assistance of an interpreter at the plea hearing and none was provided, his plea was not knowing and intelligent. We affirm.

On May 10, 2004, the defendant was charged in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court with eleven offenses relating to the theft of an automobile.2 According to the docket sheet, no interpreter was present during the arraignment. However, a Cape Verdean Creole…