Reported / Citable
Background
Romeo Godinez-Domingo was charged with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326(a). On June 24, 2026, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez in the El Paso Division with counsel and entered a guilty plea to Count One of the indictment pursuant to a plea agreement.
Before accepting the plea, the magistrate judge conducted an extensive colloquy with the defendant, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, to ensure full understanding of his constitutional rights, the charges, and the consequences of his plea, including immigration consequences.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge made 14 explicit findings establishing that the defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and made with full understanding of his rights. The defendant demonstrated understanding that by pleading guilty, he was waiving his right to plead not guilty, his right to trial by jury, his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, his right against self-incrimination, and his right to compel witnesses to testify.
The court found that the defendant understood the nature of the illegal reentry charge, the maximum possible penalties including mandatory minimums, and that the sentencing guidelines, though applicable, are advisory in nature. Critically, the defendant acknowledged that defense counsel explained the immigration consequences of the guilty plea. The magistrate judge found no promises induced the plea except those in the plea agreement, that no threats or force were used, and that the defendant is competent to enter a plea.
Based on these findings, Magistrate Judge Enriquez recommended to the district judge that the guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered. Sentencing remains to be determined by the presiding District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) pursuant to a plea agreement
- Magistrate judge documented fourteen findings establishing the plea was knowing, voluntary, and made with full understanding of constitutional rights and consequences
- Defense counsel explicitly explained immigration consequences to the defendant before the plea
- Defendant knowingly waived his right to trial, appeal, and collateral attack of conviction
- District Judge to determine sentence following acceptance of plea
Why It Matters
This case exemplifies the strict procedural protections afforded to criminal defendants in plea proceedings. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11’s colloquy requirement ensures that magistrate judges document the defendant’s explicit understanding of rights and consequences before accepting a guilty plea. By creating a detailed record of findings, the judicial system protects defendants from later claiming misunderstanding and safeguards the integrity of the plea process.
In immigration-related criminal cases particularly, this proceeding underscores the critical importance of addressing immigration consequences at the plea stage. A conviction for illegal reentry carries devastating immigration consequences—not merely potential imprisonment and fines, but permanent bars to legal status. The thorough documentation that defense counsel explained these consequences creates a record that protects both the defendant’s interests and the finality of conviction.