Opinion
No. 05-02-01813-CR
Opinion Filed October 27, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F99-45286-L. AFFIRM
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Ignacio Garcia Reymundo appeals his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04(a), 49.09(b) (Vernon 2003). Appellant waived a jury trial and entered an open guilty plea. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years confinement, probated for ten years, and assessed a $300 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging seven violations. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years confinement and a $300 fine. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to swear in appellant's attorney as an interpreter at the revocation hearing. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant argues that because his native language is Spanish, he did not understand what occurred during the revocation hearing, and the trial court did not swear in appellant's attorney as an interpreter. The State responds that even if the trial court did not swear in appellant's attorney as an interpreter at the revocation hearing, there was no harm. In criminal proceedings, an interpreter must be sworn to interpret for an accused who does not understand and speak the English language. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.30(a) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Any person may be recognized by the court to serve as an interpreter for an accused under the same rules and penalties as are provided for witnesses. See id. In this case, the record is unclear whether appellant's attorney was sworn in as an interpreter at the revocation hearing, but a notation at the beginning of the reporter's record of the hearing states: "The following proceedings are being translated from English to Spanish and Spanish to English by Defense Attorney Roberto Dueno, to the Defendant." Appellant did not object to the trial court's failure to swear in his attorney as the interpreter. Thus, appellant has waived any complaint regarding counsel's qualifications and oath. See Carr v. State, 475 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Lara v. State, 761 S.W.2d 481, 482-83 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1988, no pet.). Moreover, appellant testified during the hearing that he understood the allegations in the State's motion to revoke community supervision, he was freely pleading true to the allegations, and he was arrested on two separate occasions for DWI while on community supervision. Appellant does not point to any mistranslation during the proceedings. See Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) overruled in part on other grounds by Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Nothing in the record supports appellant's general assertion that he could have been confused by the proceedings with his attorney acting as interpreter. Accordingly, having reviewed the entire record, we overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.