United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K.E. MAHONEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
August 31, 2017, the above-named Defendant, Joshua J.
Ritchott, by consent (Doc. 54), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of
guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the Superseding Indictment (Doc.
29). After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath
concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, the
court determined that the guilty pleas were knowledgeable and
voluntary, and the offenses charged were supported by an
independent basis in fact containing each of the essential
elements of the offenses. The court therefore
RECOMMENDS that the pleas of guilty be
accepted and the Defendant be adjudged guilty.
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.
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 knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to
Defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Susperseding Indictment, and he had fully discussed these
charges with his attorney.
court determined that the Defendant was pleading guilty under
a plea agreement with the Government. 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 agreementand made certain the
Defendant understood its terms.
Defendant was advised also that after his pleas were
accepted, he would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a
later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from
what the Defendant or his counsel anticipated.
court summarized the charges against the Defendant, and
listed the elements of the crimes. The court determined that
the Defendant understood each and every element of the
crimes, and the Defendant's counsel confirmed that the
Defendant understood each and every element of the crimes
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the
Superseding Indictment to which the Defendant was pleading
court advised the Defendant of the consequences of his pleas,
including, for each Count, the maximum fine, the maximum term
of imprisonment, and the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment, and term of supervised release.
respect to Count 1 (conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine), the Defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $10, 000, 000.00; the
maximum term of imprisonment is life; the
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 10
years; the maximum period of supervised release is
life; and the minimum period of supervised
release is 5 years.
respect to Count 3 (possession of firearms in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime), the
Defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250,
000.00; the mandatory term of imprisonment is
5 years, which must run consecutive to any
sentence for Count 1; and the maximum period of supervised
release is 5 years.
Defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to
impose a special assessment of $100.00 on
each Count, for a total of $200, 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
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