Estrada

Defendant appeals a jury verdict of guilty to seven sex offenses. The court also found to be true special allegations on each of those counts. The allegations charged Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) and statutory sodomy, section 286, subdivision (c). Appellant does not chal lenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal but does make the following contentions specifically alleging error.

1. The court should have granted appellant’s motion under section 995 to set aside the preliminary hearing on the grounds that appellant did not waive his right to a certified Spanish-English interpreter.

2. The trial court erroneously denied the appellant a personal interpreter during trial and in addition did not obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to a personal interpreter at the beginning of the trial.

3. The trial court should have granted immunity to a prospective defense witness.

4. The trial court imposed the upper term for the principal offense for reasons constituting an element of the offense and further erred in imposing consecutive sentences for reasons constituting an element of those offenses.

We find against appellant on all…