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. Grigsby

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Dubuque Division

October 8, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DARRYL LEANDRA GRIGSBY, a/k/a Gene Andre Banks, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          C. J. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

         On September 14, 2017, the above-named defendant Darryl Leandra Grigsby, by consent (Doc. 17), appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts One and Two of the Indictment (Doc. 2). After cautioning and examining 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 defendant be adjudged guilty.

         At the commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, defendant was placed under oath and advised that if defendant answered any questions falsely, defendant could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement. Defendant also was advised that in any such prosecution, the Government could use against defendant any statements made under oath.

         The Court asked a number of questions to ensure defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. Defendant stated defendant's full name, age, and extent of schooling. The Court inquired into defendant's history of mental illness and addiction to narcotic drugs. The Court further inquired into whether 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 defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair defendant's ability to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.

         Defendant acknowledged that defendant had received a copy of the Indictment, and had fully discussed these charges with defendant's counsel.

         The Court determined that there was no plea agreement.

         Defendant was advised also that after the pleas were accepted, defendant would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from what defendant or defendant's counsel anticipated.

         The Court summarized the charges against defendant, and listed the elements of the crime. The Court determined that defendant understood each and every element of the crime, and defendant's counsel confirmed that defendant understood each and every element of the crime charged.

         The Court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Indictment to which defendant was pleading guilty.

         The Court advised defendant of the consequences of each plea, including the maximum fines, the maximum term of imprisonment for Count One, the mandatory consecutive term of imprisonment for Count Two, and the maximum terms of supervised release. Because this charge involves fraud or other intentionally deceptive practices, defendant was advised that the Court also could order defendant to provide notice of the conviction to victims of the offense.

         With respect to Count One, defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is five (5) years; and the maximum period of supervised release is three (3) years. With respect to Count Two, defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the term of imprisonment is a mandatory two (2) years, to be served consecutively to any other sentence; and the maximum period of supervised release is one (1) year.

         Defendant also was advised that the Court is obligated to impose a special assessment of $100 for each count to which defendant pled guilty, for a total of $200, which defendant must pay. Defendant also was advised of the collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. Defendant acknowledged that defendant understood all of the above consequences.

         The Court explained supervised release to defendant, and advised that a term of supervised release could be imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. Defendant was advised that there are conditions of supervised release, and that if defendant were found to have violated a condition of supervised release, then the term of supervised release could be revoked and defendant could be required to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on supervised release. Defendant was advised that parole has been abolished.

         The Court also explained to defendant that the district judge would determine the appropriate sentence at the sentencing hearing. Defendant confirmed that defendant understood the Court would not determine the appropriate sentence until after the preparation of a presentence report, which the parties would have the opportunity to challenge. Defendant acknowledged that defendant understood the sentence imposed might be different from what defendant's ...


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.