United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Central Division
For Abel Hernandez-Labra, also known as Santiago Ferreira-Navedo, Defendant: Jill M Johnston, LEAD ATTORNEY, Federal Public Defender's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA.
For USA, Plaintiff: Daniel C Tvedt, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEAS OF GUILTY
JON STUART SCOLES, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On the 4th day of November 2014, the defendant, by consent, appeared before the court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts 1, 5, 7, and 8 of the Second Superseding Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the court determined that the guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary, and that the offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offenses. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the pleas of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.
At the commencement of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding, the defendant was placed under oath and advised that if he answered any questions falsely, he could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement.
The court then asked a number of questions to ensure the defendant's mental capacity to enter the pleas. The defendant stated his full name, his age, and the extent of his schooling. The court determined that the defendant could understand the proceedings through an interpreter who assisted the defendant in these proceedings. The court inquired into the defendant's history of mental illness and addiction to controlled substances. The court further inquired into whether the defendant was under the influence of any drug, medication or alcoholic beverage at the time of the pleas. From this inquiry, the court determined that the defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair his ability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.
The defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the Second Superseding Indictment and that he had fully discussed these charges with his attorney.
The defendant was then fully advised of his right not to plead guilty and to have a jury trial, including:
1. The right to assistance of counsel at every stage of the pretrial and trial proceedings;
2. The right to a speedy, public trial;
3. The right to have his case tried by a jury selected from a cross-section of the community;
4. That he would be presumed innocent at each stage of the proceedings, and would be found not guilty unless the government could prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt;
5. That the government could call witnesses into court, but that his attorney would have the right to confront and ...