Guilty Plea Without Interpreter's Oath In Court
The defendant claims that his plea of guilty was not entered voluntarily because the court interpreter was not administered the interpreter's oath as required by General Statutes 1-25 immediately prior to the defendant entering his plea.
The defendant failed to object to this matter during the trial and now seeks to argue it on appeal. "Ordinarily, we will not review a claim that was not distinctly raised before the trial court." State v. Rogers, 38 Conn. App. 777, 787, 664 A.2d 291, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 918, 665 A.2d 610 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1084, 116 S. Ct. 799, 133 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1996).
In addition, the defendant has failed to raise a claim of entitlement to the extraordinary review provided under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).
The Golding court held "that a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error;
(2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right;
(3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial;
(4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239-40.
"In the absence of such a request, we have, in the past, declined to review a defendant's claim under similar circumstances." State v. Rogers, 38 Conn. App. at 787. We therefore decline to review the defendant's claim.