United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C.J.
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge
On
March 5, 2018, the above-named defendant, Matthew Charles
Earhart, by consent (Doc. 23), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of
guilty to Counts One and Two of the Indictment (Doc. 1).
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 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 defendant
and defendant's counsel, the Court determined that
defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The
Court summarized the plea agreement, and made certain
defendant understood its terms.
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 fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and term of
supervised release.
With
respect to Count One (1), defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $5, 000,
000; the maximum term of imprisonment is
forty (40) years; the mandatory minimum term
of imprisonment is five (5) years; the
maximum period of supervised release is
life; and the minimum period of supervised
release is five (5) years.
With
respect to Count Two (2), defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is life;
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is five
(5) years; and the maximum period of supervised
release is five (5) years.
Defendant
also was advised that the Court is obligated to impose a
special assessment of $100.00 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
...