DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Talyia Hithe's Summary of "Commonwealth v. Yardley Y."

Commonwealth v. Yardley Y. 
464 Mass. 223 (2013)

This case is an appeal from the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate plea.  In 1995, the defendant, then fourteen years old, entered a plea of guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen.  The defendant and his mother were native Khmai speakers. During the proceedings, the trial judge recognized that the defendant would need an interpreter and the docket shows that interpreters were ordered for certain court dates, although no entry on the docket indicates that interpreters were actually present. In 2009, the defendant sought to vacate his plea on the grounds that no interpreter had been present at his plea hearing and as such, he was denied the assistance of his parent and effective assistance from counsel.  As evidence, he submitted an affidavit from his mother, a 1996 report by the Department of Youth Services, and a 1996 educational report discussing his educational skills. The trial court judge denied his motion on the grounds that the court has never required the documentation of the presence of an interpreter in the court room. The defendant then moved for reconsideration introducing an affidavit from the chief financial officer of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS). The court of appeals affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Juvenile Court improperly denied his motion for a new trial. When there is a lengthy delay for a motion to vacate a plea and motion for new trial, the burden of showing that the defendant did not understand or voluntarily enter a guilty plea lies with the defendant. The defendant must provide sufficient credible and reliable factual evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge properly conducted his plea proceeding. Here, the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Interpreters were ordered for the defendant’s court dates.  He was able to talk to informed adults, including his mother and his attorney. His competency was not an issue during the original plea proceedings. The defendant’s second claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel was also denied because the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence.  
The order denying a motion for new trial was affirmed.  

Written 7/15/2013