Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Coles

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

June 6, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
NICODIMUS COLES, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

          C.J. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge

         On June 6, 2017, the above-named defendant, Nicodimus Coles, by consent (Doc. 19), appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment (Doc. 2). 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 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. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant agreed to forfeit and abandon all items seized by law enforcement at the time of any arrest or search, including the defendant's arrest and the search of his residence on November 3, 2016.

         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 1 of the 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, and term of supervised release.

         With respect to Count 1, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is 3 years.

         The defendant was also advised that if the court finds the defendant has three previous convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, then under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), with respect to Count 1, the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 15 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is 5 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.