ILNews

High court takes post-conviction case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to a post-conviction case in which the defendant, who spoke only Spanish, claimed he didn't enter his plea knowingly or intelligently.

Efren R. Diaz appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Efren R. Diaz v. State of Indiana, No. 20A05-0903-PC-165. At his post-conviction hearing, Diaz presented the testimony of Christina Courtright, a certified court interpreter, who said there were several problems with the translation of Diaz's guilty plea. During the sentencing, Diaz stated he could understand the translator, but on appeal claimed he didn't fully understand. 

Courtright prepared a chart outlining the errors, but it wasn't allowed into evidence because of hearsay. The appellate court upheld the plea because it found Diaz failed to show he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that it wasn't an error to not allow Courtright's chart, and that he knowingly and intelligently entered his plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and dealing in methamphetamine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh my lordy Therapist Oniha of the winexbackspell@gmail.com I GOT Briggs BACK. Im so excited, It only took 2days for him to come home. bless divinity and bless god. i must be dreaming as i never thoughts he would be back to me after all this time. I am so much shock and just cant believe my eyes. thank you thank you thank you from the bottom of my heart,he always kiss and hug me now at all times,am so happy my heart is back to me with your help Therapist Oniha.

  2. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  3. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  4. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  5. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

ADVERTISEMENT