Reported / Citable
Background
Rony Alexander Jandres was charged in a one-count indictment with illegal re-entry in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On June 18, 2026, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda with counsel and entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge conducted a Rule 11 colloquy and made thirteen findings establishing that Jandres’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and constitutionally sound. The defendant was found to fully understand his constitutional rights, including his right to trial, confrontation of witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination. He was advised of the nature of the charge, maximum penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, potential immigration consequences, supervised release terms, fines, and special assessments.
Critically, the magistrate found that the defendant’s plea was not induced by promises, threats, or force; that defense counsel explained the immigration consequences; and that the defendant was competent to enter the plea. The magistrate determined there was a factual basis supporting the guilty plea. Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilty.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate’s acceptance recommendation indicates the defendant’s plea satisfied strict Rule 11 requirements for voluntariness and knowledge of consequences.
- The defendant was specifically advised of immigration consequences, a critical component in re-entry cases where deportation or other immigration penalties typically follow conviction.
- The recommendation is subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
This routine criminal procedure matter underscores the procedural protections required before courts can accept guilty pleas in federal criminal cases, particularly in immigration-related charges. The magistrate’s detailed findings on Rule 11 compliance create a record that typically insulates the conviction from appellate challenge based on plea validity grounds.