cross examination. Id. The New York Appellate Division has stated that “there is no need to appoint an interpreter merely because English is not defendant’s first language. Only when a defendant exhibits an inability to understand the proceedings or to communicate with counsel must a court inquire whether an interpreter is needed.” People v. Rivera, 15 A.D.3d 859, 788 N.Y.S.2d 802, 803 (N.Y.App.Div.2005), leave to appeal denied. The Hawaii Supreme Court similarly held that where the record demonstrates that the defendant had a sufficient command of English to understand the questions asked and answers given, the court’s failure to appoint an interpreter is not error. State v. Faafiti, 54 Haw. 637, 513 P.2d 697, 699 (1973); accord Flores v. State, 509 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the rationale behind these
holding that a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if the defendant understands the range of allowable punishment holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death holding that the best practice for a trial court is to question the defendant personally on the record to ensure that the defendant understands the right understands what is lost in the waiver has discussed the issue with defense counsel and voluntarily intends to waive the right holding that if a defendant understands and communicates reasonably well in english then the mere fact that such defendant might be able to speak another language more fluently does not warrant using an interpreter at trial holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal