United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
GUILTY
C.J.
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge
On
February 21, 2017, the above-named defendant, Derrick Jermain
Brown, by consent (Doc. 209), appeared before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count
One of the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 33). After cautioning
and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the
subjects mentioned in Rule 11, the court determined that the
guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offense
charged was supported by an independent basis in fact
containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The
court therefore RECOMMENDS that the plea of guilty be
accepted and the defendant be adjudged guilty.
At the
commencement of the Rule 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. He also was advised that in any
such prosecution, the Government could use against him any
statements he made under oath.
The
court asked a number of questions to ensure the
defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. The
defendant stated his full name, his age, and the extent of
his schooling. The court inquired into the defendant's
history of mental illness and addiction to narcotic drugs.
The court further inquired into whether the defendant was
under the influence of any drug, medication, or alcoholic
beverage at the time of the plea hearing. 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 plea of guilty to
the charge.
The
defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Superseding Indictment, and he had fully discussed the charge
with his attorney.
The
court determined that the defendant was pleading guilty under
a plea agreement with the Government.[1] After confirming that a copy
of the written plea agreement was in front of the defendant
and his attorney, the court determined that the defendant
understood the terms of the plea agreement. The court
summarized the plea agreement, and made certain the defendant
understood its terms.
The
court explained to the defendant that because the plea
agreement provided for dismissal of charges if he pleaded
guilty, a presentence report would be prepared and a district
judge would consider whether or not to accept the plea
agreement. If the district judge decided to reject the plea
agreement, then the defendant would have an opportunity to
withdraw his plea of guilty and change it to not guilty.
The
defendant was advised also that after his plea was accepted,
he would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date,
even if the sentence imposed was different from what the
defendant or his counsel anticipated.
The
court summarized the charge against the defendant, and listed
the elements of the crime. The court determined that the
defendant understood each and every element of the crime, and
the defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant
understood each and every element of the crime charged.
The
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crime charged in Count One of the Superseding
Indictment to which the defendant was pleading guilty.
The
court advised the defendant of the consequences of his plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, the possibility
that restitution could be ordered, and term of supervised
release.
With
respect to Count One, the defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $10, 000, 000; the maximum term of
imprisonment is 80 years; the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment is 5 years; and the maximum period of supervised
release is Life; and the minimum period of supervised release
is 8 years.
The
defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to
impose a special assessment of $100.00, which the defendant
must pay. The defendant also was advised of the collateral
consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant acknowledged
that he understood all of the above consequences.
The
court explained supervised release to the defendant, and
advised him that a term of supervised release would be
imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. The
defendant was advised that there are conditions of supervised
release, and that if he were found to have violated a
condition of supervised release, then his term of supervised
release could be revoked and he could be required to serve in
...