MEMORANDUM OPINION

On appeal from his convictions in the District Court of Lincoln County, in Case No. CRF-80-68 for Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon and in Case No. CRF-80-105 for Intimidation of a Witness, the defendant raises two assignments of error.

First, the defendant contends that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive a jury trial because he alleges that he was born and lived in Mexico until he was thirteen (13) years old, and that he has difficulty in communicating in the English language and should have been granted an interpreter. He cites Parra v. Page, 430 P.2d 834 (Okl.Cr. 1967), and Landeros v. State, 480 P.2d 273 (Okl.Cr. 1971), to support his argument. However, in those cases the defendants could not speak English and could not understand their rights. A review of the record before us demonstrate that the defendant had a sufficient command of the English language to understand and knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial during a hearing which he requested specifically for that purpose.1 See, Wabaunsee v. State, 554 P.2d 36 (Okl.Cr. 1976).

*566Secondly, the defendant contends that the State failed to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument must fail. In both cases there was eyewitness testimony that positively identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crimes. When the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial is challenged on appeal, as it is herein, the test is whether a prima facie case has been established. As long as that test is satisfied, fact questions are for the trier of fact to determine. Hunt v. State, 601 P.2d 464 (Okl.Cr. 1979). In our determination, we view the entire record in the light most favorable to the State. U. S. v. Peters, 625 F.2d 366 (10th Cir. 1980); Renfro v. State, 607 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr. 1980). Clifford Truelove testified that the defendant was the person who beat and stabbed him, and Debbie Molina testified that the defendant intimidated her by use of an automobile and verbal threats. We are of the opinion that the testimony of the victims in both cases before us was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Watkins v. State, 509 P.2d 139 (Okl.Cr. 1973); Hill v. State, 567 P.2d 516 (Okl.Cr. 1977).

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgments and sentences appealed from are AFFIRMED.

specially concurring:

I concur in the opinion, however, I would like to point out another part of the transcript which more readily reveals appellant’s command of the English language:

Q. How do you remember this particular night with respect to that particular time?

A. How do I remember?

Q. Yes.

A. Because when I left a the house— Rhonda’s house it was about ten thirty. We watched the news, and we stayed down at my house about.maybe twenty minutes, and then I go ahead and take those people to the house. We come over about twelve thirty we left the girl’s house, and we go straight to Happy Foods and buy a sandwich, and we go to the Chips Inn, and that was about twelve thirty or one.

Q. Okay. And then were you arrested the next morning?

A. Yes, sir.