On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 03-12-0767.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 23, 2010
Before Judges Carchman and Parrillo.
Following an unsuccessful Jackson-Denno hearing,*fn1 defendant Israel Davila entered a plea of guilty to third-degree*fn2 endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a. The judge sentenced defendant to parole supervision for life and ordered defendant to undergo drug, alcohol and psychiatric evaluations. In addition, defendant was ordered to pay mandated fines, assessments and penalties. Defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of conviction but vacate the parole supervision for life and order the imposition of a special sentence of community supervision for life. See State v. Cooke, 345 N.J. Super. 480, 490 (App. Div. 2001), certif. denied, 171 N.J. 340 (2002); State v. Horton, 331 N.J. Super. 92, 102 (App. Div. 2000).
We first note that upon the entry of his plea following the Jackson-Denno hearing, defendant did not condition his plea to preserve his right of appeal. R. 3:9-3(b). "Generally, a defendant who pleads guilty is prohibited from raising, on appeal, the contention that the State violated his constitutional rights prior to the plea." State v. Knight, 183 N.J. 449, 470 (2005) (quoting State v. Crawley, 149 N.J. 310, 316 (1997), certif. denied, 189 N.J. 426 (2007)). As such, he cannot challenge the denial of his motion to suppress his confession. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, we decide the matter on the merits.
The facts attendant to the underlying charge can be summarized by noting that defendant was charged with exposing himself to an eight-year-old girl in June 2002. Subsequently on November 3, 2003, defendant was arrested in the Bronx and interviewed in Spanish, his native language, by Detective Werner Rodas of the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office. Detective Rodas is fluent in Spanish having spoken the language his entire life.
After explaining the charges to defendant, Detective Rodas "covered Miranda"*fn3 with defendant. According to the Detective, the following dialogue took place:
A: Yes. He immediately - once I told him what the charges were, and it was New Jersey, Somerset County, New Jersey, he automatically said it must have been something with Madeline.
Q: "Must have been something with Madeline," is that what you said?
Q: Okay. And did you have him continue the conversation, or did you stop him?
A: No. I told him that: before we talk, I need to go over your rights with you.
Q: Now, did you know who Madeline was?
A: That is the victim's mother.
THE INTERPRETER: I am sorry, the Interpreter didn't hear that.
THE WITNESS: That is the victim's mother.
By [ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR]:
Q: You know what? That is much better, if you can move that over there.
Q: Now I can really hear you. Now, when you advised him of his Miranda, how was - how was that given to him? Was that given from your memory, or from a written form of some kind?
A: Actually, I have a written form that I have been utilizing since I have been here at the Prosecutor's Office.
Q: Was that in Spanish or in ...