Tolentino, Sostenes Lorenzo

5/21/26

PD-0872-25

  1. “The court of appeals erred in reviewing this case solely as a due process matter, when this Court holds that the failure of a trial court to provide a defendant a trial in a language he can speak and comprehend is a Sixth Amendment issue.”
  2. “Even if the trial court’s decision is reviewed solely for an abuse of discretion, the court of appeals erred in how it applied that standard to the record in this case.”

Tolentino was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The trial court was aware Tolentino did not understand English; his native language is Nahuatl, which is spoken in parts of Mexico. The trial court provided him with a Spanish-language interpreter.

Tolentino appealed. After multiple rehearings, the court of appeals affirmed. Following Linton v. State, 275 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), it set the proper standard not at whether the best interpretive service was employed but whether what was provided was adequate for Tolentino to understand and participate in the proceedings. The court of appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The testimony and video from the officer on the scene and the testimony of the trial interpreter gave the trial court “a factual foundation for concluding that Tolentino could understand the proceedings.” The court conceded that some of Tolentino’s on-scene conversation was basic and could evince lack of understanding, but also noted that his BAC was .203; Tolentino had wet himself before his interaction with police.

On review, Tolentino argues that, because his inability to understand the proceedings impacts his ability to confront witnesses, there is not only a Fifth Amendment due process issue but a Sixth Amendment issue. He parlays this into a claim that he had to waive an interpreter in Nahuatl before any consideration of a Spanish was permitted. He further argues that the proper standard—“sufficient present ability to consult with
his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding”—requires reversal. This conclusion is based on the timing of the evidence taken and his disagreement with that facts as implicitly found by the trial court.