Resendes

THE COURT.

Appellant was convicted after jury trial of sale of heroin, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and carrying a loaded firearm in public. He was sentenced to prison for the three-year middle base term, On appeal from the judgment, he contends that the providing of only one interpreter for himself and his codefendant violated his constitutional rights to an interpreter throughout the proceedings (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14) and to the effective assistance of counsel (U.S. Const., Amends. 6, 14; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15). Respondent counters that a defendant unable to understand English is not entitled to his own personal defense interpreter.

In People v. Rioz (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 905 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 903 ], one interpreter was provided for all four Spanish-speaking defendants, each of whom listened to the interpretation through an earphone/headset. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Aguilar (1984) 35 Cal.3d 785 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 908 , 677 P.2d 1198 ], we held that this procedure deprived each defendant of his constitutional right to an interpreter. Applying the informed speculation standard which this court adopted in People v. Carreon (1984) 151…