Background
Thomas Lizardo Hernandez pleaded guilty in June 2025 to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 undesignated felony. The Maricopa County Superior Court suspended sentence and imposed 18 months of probation. Hernandez, whose primary language is Spanish, had a Spanish interpreter at his plea and sentencing proceedings, but received his written probation conditions only in English.
The conditions required Hernandez to report to his probation officer within 72 hours and provide a current address. After he did not timely report, the probation department petitioned to revoke probation. Hernandez did not dispute the missed reporting deadline, but argued that the condition could not be enforced because it had not been translated into Spanish or orally reviewed through an interpreter. The superior court found a violation and reinstated probation for a new 18-month term.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Rule 27 requires that a probationer receive written conditions and bars a violation finding for a condition not received in writing, but it does not require written probation conditions to be translated into Spanish. Hernandez admittedly received the English written conditions, including the reporting requirement.
The court also rejected the due-process claim. Hernandez had a Spanish interpreter at every court hearing, including the proceedings in which he entered his plea and probation was imposed. He neither challenged the validity of his plea nor showed that the interpreter was deficient. The court held that this record satisfied the minimum due-process requirements for probation proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Arizona Rule 27 requires written notice of probation conditions, but does not require a translated written copy.
- A probationer who receives English written conditions may be found in violation absent authority requiring translation into another language.
- Interpreter access at court proceedings satisfied due process here, where no deficiency in interpretation was shown.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the right to competent interpretation during court proceedings from a claimed right to translated written probation conditions. It confirms that, under the rules and record presented, English-language written conditions were enforceable against a Spanish-speaking probationer who had interpreter assistance in court.
The memorandum decision is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).