People v. Bicet

11 Citing cases

  1. Gamble v. Kirkpatrick

    17-CV-05294 (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. May. 26, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 693, 580 N.Y.S.2d 55 (A.D.2d Dep't 1992) (finding that presumption of regularity applied where defendant asserted that interpreter was not sworn).

  2. Alvarez v. Warden

    No. 2:97-cv-1895 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Some federal courts have similarly recognized a presumption of regularity in court interpreter official duty. See Michel v. United States, 849 F.Supp.2d 649, 656 (W.D. Virg. Mar. 28, 2012); Hou v. Walker, No. CV 96 1365, 1996 WL 684442, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996) (quoting People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 580 NY.S.2d 55, 56 (1992); Clervil v. McNeil, No. 08-20144-CIV, 2008 WL 4753575, at *12 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 28, 2008) (citing Hou, 1996 WL 684442, at *3). If the undersigned were to apply such a presumption here, the undersigned would conclude that Petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption regarding Carmen Krewson.

  3. United States v. Medrano

    No. 2:11-cr-0134 JAM KJN (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)

    Additionally, the undersigned notes that some federal courts have recognized a presumption of regularity in court interpreter official duty. See Michel v. United States, 849 F.Supp.2d 649, 656 (W.D. Virg. Mar. 28, 2012); Hou v. Walker, No. CV 96 1365, 1996 WL 684442, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996) (quoting People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 580 NY.S.2d 55, 56 (1992); Clervil v. McNeil, No. 08-20144-CIV, 2008 WL 4753575, at *12 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 28, 2008) (citing Hou, 1996 WL 684442, at *3).

  4. German-Yunga v. Racette

    14-CV-4537 (ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2016)

    Petitioner's suggestion that his counsel's failure to object to the interpreters' not being sworn in constitutes ineffective assistance is equally meritless. Passing over that "[s]ome procedural irregularities, such as this one, do not present constitutional issues," Hou v. Walker, No. 96-CV-1365 (RJD), 1996 WL 684442, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996) (citing Costa v. Williams, 830 F. Supp. 223, 224-25 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)), an unsworn interpreter is "cloaked with the presumption of regularity, which 'allows a court to assume that an official or person acting under an oath of office will not do anything contrary to his or her official duty,'" id. (quoting People v. Bicet, 580 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56 (App. Div. 1992)). Petitioner has not come forward with evidence to rebut that presumption.

  5. Michel v. United States

    849 F. Supp. 2d 649 (W.D. Va. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    an interpreter exercising his or her official duties has acted properly.”); State v. Mendoza, 181 Ariz. 472, 891 P.2d 939, 942 (Ariz.Ct.App.1995) (“[I]t is presumed that court interpreters will correctly carry out their duties and that oaths will be properly administered.”); Thomason v. Territory, 4 N.M. 154, 13 P. 223, 228 (1887) (“Acting under oath and the order of the court, the presumption should be in favor of proper action by [an interpreter], rather than against it.... If this officer of the court did or said anything prejudicial, that is a fact for the defendant to show....”). Furthermore, a limited number of federal courts have likewise recognized that, “upon a collateral attack, an ... interpreter is cloaked with the presumption of regularity, which ‘allows a court to assume that an official or person acting under oath of office will not do anything contrary to his or her official duty.’ ” Hou v. Walker, No. CV 96 1365, 1996 WL 684442, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996) (quoting People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56 (1992)); see also Clervil v. McNeil, No. 08–20144–CIV, 2008 WL 4753575, at *12 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 28, 2008) (citing Hou, 1996 WL 684442, at *3). In any event, this court believes that, even without this supporting authority, a presumption of propriety should accompany a court interpreter in the performance of his or her official duties.

  6. People v. Peralta

    171 A.D.3d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood the charges and intelligently decided to enter the plea of guilty (seePeople v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d at 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. Woods, 147 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 46 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Nichols, 77 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 908 N.Y.S.2d 295 ).The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (seePeople v. Cortez, 115 A.D.3d 757, 758, 981 N.Y.S.2d 596 ; People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 693, 580 N.Y.S.2d 55 ).Accordingly, since the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant "understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea" ( People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d at 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ; seePeople v. Woods, 147 A.D.3d at 1157, 46 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Nichols, 77 A.D.3d at 1340, 908 N.Y.S.2d 295 ), we affirm the judgment of conviction.

  7. People v. Cortez

    115 A.D.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Although an interpreter must be sworn to interpret properly and accurately, “on appeal the presumption of regularity allows a court to assume that an official or person acting under an oath of office will not do anything contrary to his or her official duty or omit to do anything which his or her official duty requires to be done” ( People v. Bicet, 180 A.D.2d 692, 693, 580 N.Y.S.2d 55). It was the defendant's burden to come forward in the County Court with affirmative evidence to rebut this presumption, or to point to evidence in the record to rebut this presumption ( see id.). The defendant has not satisfied this burden ( see e.g. People v. Torres, 96 A.D.2d 604, 604–605, 465 N.Y.S.2d 299).

  8. People v. Modesto

    39 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 8 times

    The defendant's further claim that he was deprived of due process by the interpreter's alleged failure to file an oath of public office is based on matter dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Rivera, 33 AD3d 942). To the extent that the defendant complains that the interpreter did not swear to translate truthfully and accurately, his contention is without merit ( see People v Rivera, supra; People v Bicet, 180 AD2d 692, 693; People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604). The defendant's contention that his post-plea statement appearing in the presentence investigation report required the court to conduct a further inquiry before accepting his plea is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Cooper, 34 AD3d 827).

  9. People v. Rivera

    33 A.D.3d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 11 times

    The defendant's contention that he was deprived of due process by the failure of the interpreter to file an oath of public office and be sworn to interpret truthfully and accurately is based partially on a matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( cf. People v Dallas, 31 AD3d 573). To the extent that the contention can be reviewed, it is without merit ( see People v Bicet, 180 AD2d 692, 693; People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604). The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were coerced by the prosecution's promise of leniency for his wife is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas on that basis, or otherwise raise this issue before the court of first instance ( see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; People v Coles, 240 AD2d 419).

  10. People v. Bicet

    27 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

    March 28, 2006. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 10, 1992 ( People v. Bicet, 180 AD2d 692), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 4, 1990. Ricardo Bicet, Pine City, N.Y., appellant pro se.