People v. Cardenas

I respectfully dissent. Our rule to show cause required briefing and response on the following question:

Whether the county court has discretion to appoint a translator for an indigent client who is represented by a pro bono attorney in a criminal case.1 (emphasis added).

In my view, the county court erred in determining that it did not have discretion to appoint an interpreter to assist Cardenas in communications with his pro bono attorney.

When Cardenas entered his guilty plea, he was without the assistance of counsel. The only interpreter available to him in the guilty plea proceeding was a…