Christiansen Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, vs. Tom Lundberg, et al., d/b/a Tom's Stop, Inc., Appellants.

 STATE OF MINNESOTA
 IN COURT OF APPEALS
 C4-98-196

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Andrei Petrovich Guchikov,
Appellant.

 Filed July 28, 1998
Affirmed
Harten, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 97055988

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Mark F. Anderson, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., #600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 14th Floor NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Gayle C. Hendley, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 S. Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Davies, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

 HARTEN, Judge

Alleging that the police should have provided a Russian language interpreter when they read him his Miranda rights, appellant Andrei Petrovich Guchikov challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his statements to the police. We affirm.

FACTS

  In 1997, police officers arrested appellant on information that he had had sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl and had procured her sexual performance. One officer advised appellant of his Miranda rights and asked whether he understood them. Without hesitation, appellant answered, "Sure." The officer then asked appellant if he wished to talk to the officer about the case, and after a slight pause appellant answered, "Yes." During the ensuing interview, appellant admitted having a relationship with the girl but denied having sexual relations with her or taking nude photographs of her.

The state charged appellant with criminal sexual conduct in the third degree under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(b) (1996), and use of a minor in a sexual performance under Minn. Stat. § 617.246, subd. 2 (1996). At a Rasmussen hearing, appellant moved to suppress his statements to the police. Appellant contended that because the police did not provide him a Russian language interpreter when they administered the Miranda warning, he did not waive his Miranda rights knowingly and voluntarily. The district court denied appellant's motion. Subsequently at trial, the jury found appellant guilty on both counts. This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

  We review de novo a trial court's determination that a defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary on the facts found, but do not reverse findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Mills, 562 N.W.2d 276, 283 (Minn. 1997).

Minn. Stat. §§ 611.30-.34 (1996) require police officers to obtain an independent qualified interpreter before interrogating persons handicapped in communication. But violation of these interpreter statutes does not require suppression of statements. State v. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d 245, 253 (Minn. 1997). The issue is whether the defendant validly waived his constitutional rights, not whether the interpreter statutes were violated. Id. The state remains burdened to prove that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Id. at 252. Ordinarily, the state is deemed to have met its burden if it shows that the defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights, indicated he understood those rights, and gave a statement. Id.

Here, at no point either before or during the interrogation did appellant say anything to indicate that he did not understand his rights or that he wished to invoke his right to remain silent. Although Russian may have been appellant's first language, his entire conversation with the officer indicated a comfortable facility with English. We agree with the district court that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarilywaived his right against self-incrimination. Therefore, he is not entitled to suppression of his statement.

Affirmed.