After a Spalding County jury convicted her of one count of cruelty to children in the first degree, Annie Ling, whose native language is Mandarin Chinese, filed a motion for new trial, arguing that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to secure an interpreter for trial and in relying on her husband to help convey the State’s last minute plea agreement offer. The trial court issued an order summarily denying Ling’s motion without explanation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in Ling v. State , 300 Ga. App. 726 686 SE2d 356 2009. We granted certiorari to determine “whether the trial court found as a matter of fact that the defendant spoke and understood English well enough ‘to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against her, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing her defense.’ ” Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 171 95 SC 896, 43 LE2d 103 1975. Accord Biggs v. State , 281 Ga. 627, 629 642 SE2d 74 2007. We also posed the questions of whether Ling, if she does not satisfy the competence standard in Drope , a was denied her right to be present at trial by the lack of an interpreter at trial and b received ineffective assistance of counsel due to her trial counsel’s failure to secure an interpreter for trial. For the reasons that follow, we hold that one who cannot communicate effectively in English may be effectively incompetent to proceed in a criminal matter and rendered effectively absent at trial if no interpreter is provided. We also now hold that trial courts must state and explain their findings when an issue concerning the need for an interpreter that implicates foundational due process rights is raised and decided at the motion for new trial stage. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s order denying the new trial motion must be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court to apply the standard in Drope and to state its findings on the record. Should the trial court find that Ling did not satisfy the Drope standard at the time of trial, it follows that she was denied her right to be present at trial, and, under the circumstances here, received ineffective assistance from her trial counsel. On remand, the trial court should also explain its disposition of the separate issue of whether Ling received ineffective assistance due to her trial counsel’s failure to adequately convey the State’s last minute plea agreement offer to her.
1. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a criminal defendant must show that her counsel’s performance was professionally deficient and that, but for such deficient performance, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LEd2d 674 1984. Ling argued both in the trial court and Court of Appeals that her trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to secure an interpreter for trial and that she was prejudiced as a result because she was effectively absent from her own trial.
