Rucker, J.
Victor Ponce is a non-native English speaker who pleaded guilty under terms of an agreement. He appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief essentially contending that the Spanish translation of the rights he was waiving by entering the plea was so inaccurate his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. We agree and reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court.
. . . .
The record shows that at the 1999 guilty plea hearing the court appointed Christina Castillo as an interpreter. [Footnote omitted.] The trial court asked Ponce through the interpreter if he read, wrote, and understood the English language, to which Ponce responded: “Lo entiendo, y lo hablo un poco.” Ex. G at 5. Interpreter Castillo restated this to the court in English as: “He understands a little and speaks a little English.” Guilty Plea Tr. at 7. [Footnote omitted.] The trial court informed Ponce through the interpreter: “If you do not understand the words or questions that I use, please let me know[.]” Guilty Plea Tr. at 6. The court then asked: “Are you able to understand the conversation we’re having through the translator?” Guilty Plea Tr. at 7. These statements were interpreted to Ponce accurately and he indicated that he was able to understand the proceedings through Interpreter Castillo. The trial court then properly advised Ponce in English of his Boykin rights. Interpreter Castillo communicated with Ponce in Spanish regarding these advisements and Ponce responded in Spanish that he understood the court’s advisements.
At his post-conviction relief hearing in 2012 Ponce still struggled with the English language. Even at that time—thirteen years after he had pleaded guilty—the post-conviction court acknowledged that “when we get to legal terms [Ponce] need[s] a Spanish translator[.]” P.C.R. Tr. at 2. Ponce called as a witness Christina Courtright, a certified court interpreter. Interpreter Courtright testified about the discrepancies between the trial court’s advisements and the Spanish language statements given to Ponce by Interpreter Castillo. She explained that Interpreter Castillo inaccurately restated the advisements to Ponce as represented below:
| Court’s Advisement in English |
English Equivalent of Spanish Interpretation Given to Ponce |
| Mr. Ponce, I now advise you that you have the right to a public and speedy trial by jury. |
He’s—he’s advising you that you have the right to another—another judging [2 syllables unintelligible] speedier. Okay? |
| You also have the right to face all witnesses against you and to see, hear, question, and cross-examine these witnesses. * * * |
And you also have the right to see those who have the witnesses and . . . to ask if it’s all right [1 syllable unintelligible]. * * * |
| Further, you cannot be compelled to make any statement or testify against yourself at any hearing or trial . . . but you may remain silent. |
And until that date you cannot make other oaths against yourself . . . but you can remain silent. |
. . . At the conclusion of the hearing the post-conviction court found, among other things: “At no time did Petitioner indicate that he did not understand the court through the translator.” App. at 161 (P.C. Order at 7, ¶16). The post-conviction court as well as the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the interpretation was “defective,” Ponce, 992 N.E.2d at 731, even calling it “poor,” App. at 161 (P.C. Order at 7, ¶18), but took the position that Ponce knew at the time of the plea hearing that he was waiving his Boykin rights. In particular, like the post-conviction court, the Court of Appeals concluded that “Ponce never even established that the plea hearing was deficient under Boykin[.]” Ponce, 992 N.E.2d at 732 n.7; see also App. at 161 (Order at 7, ¶18 (“[T]here is no evidence that Petitioner did not understand his Boykin rights.”)). We disagree with our colleagues.
As this Court has observed, “one may fully understand and even acknowledge to others an understanding of what is in actuality an inaccurate interpretation of the proceedings. Put another way, one can understand perfectly the words spoken by an interpreter who tells you the wrong thing.” Diaz v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1089, 1095 (Ind. 2010). Here there is no question that the trial court correctly articulated the specific rights enumerated in Boykin. The problem, however, is that those rights were inaccurately interpreted. Ponce may very well have understood exactly what the interpreter said but as the record shows what the interpreter said had little to do with what the trial court had actually advised.
. . . .
In this case, although the trial court’s English language advisements were properly given, the record shows they were not accurately communicated to Ponce during the guilty plea hearing in Spanish—the language he understood. And the only evidence that Ponce understood the trial court’s English advisements is Ponce’s statement, “I understand it, and I speak it a little.” Ex. G at 5. We simply cannot infer from this statement that Ponce understood an explanation given in a foreign language of his legal rights especially where the Spanish interpretation of the advisements was wholly inadequate.
Had the trial court uttered the words relayed to Ponce by the interpreter, we doubt that a court of review would hesitate to declare that Ponce had not been given his Boykin advisements. Thus, we are of the view that an advisement from the mouth of the court-appointed interpreter instead of that of the trial judge to be a distinction without a difference. In sum, we conclude that Ponce has demonstrated that his 1999 guilty plea hearing was not conducted in accordance with the mandates of Boykin.
. . . .
. . . To declare that a defendant with limited English proficiency who received an incorrect interpretation of the trial court’s Boykin advisements should be equally culpable for his guilty plea as a defendant who is fluent in the English language and received an accurate and uninterrupted advisement directly from the trial court would work a great injustice not only on the LEP defendant, but on the integrity of our system as a whole.
In this case Ponce carried his initial burden of demonstrating that at the guilty plea hearing he was not properly advised of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. And the State failed to show that the record as a whole nonetheless demonstrated that Ponce understood his constitutional rights and waived them. Therefore, Ponce’s plea of guilty must be vacated. We thus reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this cause for further proceedings.
Dickson, C.J., and David, Massa and Rush, JJ., concur.