Reported / Citable
Background
Jorge Quinonez-Robles appeared with counsel and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He entered the plea under a plea agreement and consented to pleading before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
At the Rule 11 hearing, Quinonez-Robles was advised of the charge, trial rights, potential penalties, immigration consequences, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s appellate and collateral-review waiver.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres found that Quinonez-Robles was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. The judge also found that the plea was not induced by undisclosed promises, threats, or force.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation remained subject to the district judge’s final approval and sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- The report recommends acceptance of a guilty plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found compliance with Rule 11 and concluded that the plea was free, knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
- The defendant’s plea agreement included a waiver of appellate and collateral challenges to the conviction or sentence.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the magistrate-judge plea process in a federal criminal case: after obtaining the defendant’s consent and conducting the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge may recommend acceptance, while the district judge retains final authority to accept the plea and impose sentence.