¶6 We begin with Kedinger’s claim that he was improperly denied an interpreter. In Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, ¶¶19, 21, 316 Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, we noted that once a party properly notifies the trial court of the need for an interpreter, a hearing must be conducted on that issue unless an interpreter is appointed without a hearing. The trial court in this case conducted several hearings on this subject over the course of more than a year.
¶7 We also noted in Strook that the ultimate determination of whether a defendant is in need of an interpreter is a factual one. See id., ¶24 (citing State v. Yang,201 Wis. 2d 725, 734-35, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Ct.App.1996)). We will uphold a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2). Here, the trial court found that Kedinger did not have a hearing disability based on the testimony and observations of several witnesses and Kedinger’s own obstructive behavior at a hearing test that was provided to him at no cost. The trial court’s findings are supported by the record and we will not disturb them.