Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Jacobo Torres-Esparza appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised Torres-Esparza that he could have his plea taken by the district judge and gave the Rule 11 admonishments.
Torres-Esparza consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Torres-Esparza understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; voluntarily waived those rights; and was competent to plead guilty. The court also found that the plea was free and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge found Torres-Esparza guilty of the charged offense and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation remains subject to objections and district-court review.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 plea requirements satisfied, including competence, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea; the presiding district judge will conduct sentencing.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the magistrate-judge plea procedure in a felony case: with the defendant’s consent, a magistrate judge may conduct the plea colloquy and issue findings and a recommendation, while the district judge retains the role of accepting the recommendation and imposing sentence.