Reported / Citable
Background
Rafael Hernandez-Teran appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge to plead guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge for the taking of a felony guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Fifth Circuit precedent.
Hernandez-Teran consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea and entered the plea without a plea agreement. After addressing him personally in open court, the magistrate judge advised him of his right to have the district judge take the plea and gave the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Hernandez-Teran understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge further found that Hernandez-Teran was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported it.
The magistrate judge found Hernandez-Teran guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the presiding district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation did not impose a sentence; the case was referred to the district judge for sentencing, and the parties were given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Hernandez-Teran pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the plea satisfied Rule 11 because it was knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- Acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remained before the presiding district judge, subject to the parties’ opportunity to object.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required when a magistrate judge takes a felony guilty plea, including the defendant’s consent, Rule 11 admonishments, and findings concerning competency, voluntariness, and factual support.
It also underscores the limited posture of such a filing: the magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea, while the district judge retained responsibility for acting on the recommendation and conducting sentencing.