State v. Hernandez

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

THOMAS LIZARDO HERNANDEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0496
FILED 10-08-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2025-121474-001
The Honorable Rodney Mitchell, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Eliza Ybarra
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Jesse Finn Turner
Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Thomas Lizardo Hernandez appeals the superior court’s
order finding he violated probation. Hernandez, who primarily speaks
Spanish, claims that his probation conditions are not enforceable because
they were not provided to him in Spanish. For the reasons below, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In June 2025, Hernandez pled guilty to one count of
possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 undesignated felony. The court
suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on eighteen months’
probation. The written probation terms, which Hernandez signed, required
him to “report to [his] probation officer” within 72 hours of being placed on
probation (Condition 3) and to “provide [his] current address” to that
officer (Condition 5). Hernandez had a Spanish interpreter during the plea
colloquy and sentencing, but the written copy of his probation conditions
was only in English.

¶3 In July 2025, the probation department petitioned to revoke
Hernandez’s probation. The petition alleged violations of Conditions 3 and
5 because he failed to report within 72 hours after he was placed on
probation and failed to provide a valid address.

¶4 The court held a hearing limited to whether Hernandez
violated Condition 3. Although Hernandez does not contest he did not
timely report to his probation officer, he argued two reasons that it could
not be a basis to revoke his probation. First, the court failed to provide his
probation terms in Spanish. Second, the court neither reviewed his terms
orally through the Spanish interpreter, nor did his interpreter later review
the terms with him in Spanish. At the hearing, Hernandez’s counsel stated
that he had reviewed the recording from the plea and sentencing hearing
and avowed that it showed Condition 3 was not reviewed orally and thus
not interpreted to Spanish. Counsel requested the court take judicial notice
of the recording. The State objected, explaining that it had not watched the

2

STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

recording and did not know what it showed. The court took judicial notice
of the recording and minute entry from the plea and sentencing hearing.

¶5 The court rejected Hernandez’s argument, finding that he
violated Condition 3 but reinstating him on a new 18-month probation
term, lasting about four months longer than the original probation grant. In
doing so, the court noted Hernandez had an interpreter for the court
proceedings (including when probation was imposed) and no evidence
suggested that Hernandez “did not receive assistance in going over the
[probationary] terms.” Hernandez appeals and we have jurisdiction under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Hernandez does not dispute that the State proved that he
failed to report within 72 hours as Condition 3 required. See Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 27.8(b)(3); State v. Elmore, 174 Ariz. 480, 483 (App. 1992); State v. Watkins, 125 Ariz. 570, 572 (1980) (reviewing a probation violation determination for
an abuse of discretion). He argues instead that the superior court erred by
finding that he violated probation because his written probation terms
should have been translated for him into Spanish and reviewed with him
through his Spanish interpreter. This Court reviews the interpretation of
the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo. See State v. Burns, 237
Ariz. 1, 28 ¶ 124 (2015).

I. The Requirements of Rule 27.

¶7 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 27.1(b) requires
that, when placing a criminal defendant on probation, “[t]he court and
probation officer must give the probationer a written copy of the conditions
and regulations” of probation. “The court may not find a violation of a
condition or regulation that the probationer did not receive in writing.”
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(c)(2). Rule 27 is designed to reduce evidentiary
disputes and protect probationers from arbitrary action. State v. Alves, 174
Ariz. 504, 506 (App. 1992).

¶8 English is the established “language of the courts in Arizona.”
State v. Cordova, 109 Ariz. 439, 441 (1973); see also Cervantes v. State, 592 P.3d
784, 790 ¶ 27 (Ariz. App. 2026) (”[I]n all judicial proceedings, including
criminal matters, English is the language of the courts in Arizona.”)
(cleaned up). Here, Hernandez admits he received a written copy of his
probation conditions, in English, at the time they were imposed. This
included Condition 3, which he did not contest he had failed to satisfy. He

3

STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

concedes that no Arizona authority requires the written probation
conditions be provided in any language other than English, and he cites no
authority showing that Rule 27 can or should be read to impose such an
obligation.

¶9 Hernandez also had the benefit of a court interpreter to assist
him in Spanish when he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered
into the plea agreement that resulted in his initial term of probation. See
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.4(c). That process included the court’s confirming with
him “that the written plea agreement contains all the agreement’s terms and
that the defendant understands and agrees to the terms.” Ariz. R. Crim. P.
17.4(c). From the record, nothing suggests that Hernandez did not
understand and agree to the terms of the plea, including probation. Nor did
Hernandez challenge the voluntariness of his plea or the conditions of
probation until he was alleged to have violated those conditions.
Hernandez has not shown that the superior court erred in finding that he
violated probation.

II. Right to Continuous and Competent Interpretation

¶10 Hernandez has not shown a due process violation.
Probationers are entitled to the “minimum requirements of due process,”
including notice and an opportunity to be heard. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411
U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (citations omitted). Here, Hernandez had the benefit of
a Spanish court interpreter throughout. He cites no authority supporting
the contention that he had a right to more, or a right to a Spanish version of
the written probation conditions. Instead, the record shows that the
superior court met the “minimum requirements of due process,” including
notice, opportunity to be heard, and the right to an interpreter. Id. at 786.
On this record, Hernandez has not shown that the superior court erred.

¶11 Hernandez cannot succeed in his argument that he had a due
process right for his “written terms to be provided or conveyed in Spanish.”
Relying primarily on State v. Rios, 112 Ariz. 143, 144 (1975),1 he argues the
court violated his due process rights because it did not review all of his
probation conditions on the record through his interpreter, nor was he
provided a written copy of the probation conditions in Spanish.

1 Hernandez also cites a memorandum decision, State v. Cano, 1 CA-CR 11-

0473, 2012 WL 4327056 (App. Sept. 20, 2012). But Cano is not citable. Ariz.
R. Sup. Ct. 111(c).

4

STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

¶12 Unlike this case, “[t]he sole issue” in Rios was whether
criminal defendants “were denied due process of law by the failure of the
trial court to provide them with the continuous assistance of a competent
interpreter during the entirety of the trial.” 112 Ariz. at 143; accord State v.
Natividad, 111 Ariz. 191, 194 (1974). Here, by contrast, Hernandez had a
Spanish court interpreter at all court hearings. Thus, unlike Rios where the
defendants were unable “to exercise their rights to confrontation, cross-
examination and the effective assistance of counsel” given the lack of a
Spanish interpreter, 112 Ariz. at 145, Hernandez exercised his right to a
Spanish interpreter throughout. He has not alleged or shown that the
interpreter was deficient. See Gallegos v. Garcia, 14 Ariz. App. 85, 86 (Ariz.
App. 1971) (“The burden is on the [defendant] to show that the interpreter
was deficient.”).

CONCLUSION

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5