Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cr-00521/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cr-00521-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmie Francisco
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. CR 05-00521-TUC-RCC [CRP]

Plaintiff, ) 

)

vs. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JIMMIE FRANCISCO, )

)

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________ )

Defendant came before this Court for a change of plea colloquy pursuant to a written

plea agreement. During the colloquy, the Defendant denied a critical element of the offense,

and then made a fantastic factual assertion. The Defendant entered a plea of guilty and also

stated he would agree to enter a no contest plea. For the reasons stated below, the Court

recommends that the plea not be accepted.

On February 16, 2005, Francisco was stopped by Border Patrol agents shortly after

driving a 1979 Ford pickup truck from Mexico into the United States through the San Miguel

Gate on the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation. A consent search of the truck uncovered four

hundred and seventy one pounds of cocaine hidden within the side panels of the truck.

Defendant was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On

March 16, 2005, an indictment was issued charging Francisco with two counts, importation

and possession with intent to distribute 213 kilograms of cocaine.

On April 21, 2005, Defense counsel filed a Motion To Determine Competency of

Defendant [Dkt 9]. Mr. Bates reported that Francisco was being treated at CCA for

depression, anxiety attacks and seizures, and that he had previously received mental health

Case 4:05-cr-00521-RCC-CRP Document 39 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

treatment at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. At a hearing on May 6,

2005, the Court ordered that Francisco be evaluated by a local mental health provider. The

Court also ordered Francisco to sign a medical release to be delivered to the prosecutor so

that the medical records from FMC-Rochester could be recovered.

On July 28, 2005, the Court determined Francisco incompetent to stand trial and

ordered his commitment to the custody of the Attorney General for one hundred twenty days

for treatment to restore competency [Dkt 18]. Defendant was transferred to the Federal

Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, for treatment. 

On December 19, 2005, Dr. Weaver and Dr. Lucking issued a Forensic Evaluation of

Defendant. The staff at FMC-Butner had the Forensic Psychological Report of Sergio I.

Martinez, Ph.D., dated June 30, 2005, and the Psychiatric Evaluation by Dr. Daniel J. Shine,

Jr., from FMC-Rochester, dated July 25, 2002. Defendant had a difficult stay at FMCButner. Defendant was non-compliant with anti-depressant medication. Eventually, he was

treated with lamotrigine for complaints of mood instability. Defendant was determined to

have borderline intellectual functioning. The primary diagnosis was Personality Disorder

Not Otherwise Specified. Dr. Weaver and Dr. Lucking concluded that Mr. Francisco was

competent to stand trial.

Francisco was transferred back to CCA-Florence. An evidentiary hearing to

determine competence was scheduled. Defense counsel arranged for Francisco to be reexamined by Dr. Martinez in preparation for the evidentiary hearing.

Dr. Martinez was unable to complete the examination on March 3, 2006, because "Mr.

Francisco became increasingly frustrated, angry, and upset, while indicating he did not wish

to participate in the evaluation." Because of the incomplete examination, Dr. Martinez could

not make a definitive conclusion concerning competency. Dr. Martinez did observe that

based on the restorative treatment Francisco received at FMC-Butner, that:

"...Mr. Francisco is no longer considered to be suffering from

significant symptoms of depression that would interfere in his

capacity to participate in the legal proceedings. He is

considered, however, to continue to exhibit a self-defeating

attitude along with the above-noted personality traits that could

Case 4:05-cr-00521-RCC-CRP Document 39 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

undermine his level of participation in his legal proceedings and

in his ability to relate with his attorney in a factual and rational

manner."

Letter from Dr. Martinez to U.S. Magistrate Judge Pyle, March 7, 2006, p.3.

At that time, an evidentiary hearing was set for March 22, 2006, to determine

Francisco's competency to stand trial. After receiving Dr. Martinez' March 7, 2006, letter

describing the aborted mental examination of Defendant, counsel for Defendant conceded

that Francisco was competent to stand trial and that the evidentiary hearing was unnecessary

[Dkt 33]. The Court determined Francisco was competent to stand trial and vacated the

evidentiary hearing. Id.

On March 27, 2006, Defendant attempted to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to a written

plea agreement [Dkt 34]. Defendant would not admit knowledge of the drugs in the truck

he was driving when he was stopped and arrested. The Court refused to accept the plea of

guilty because of the lack of a factual basis to support the plea. Id.

On MaY 15, 2006, Defendant again attempted to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to the

same plea agreement [Dkt 35]. According to Defense counsel, without the plea agreement,

Francisco is looking at a Guideline sentencing range of thirty years to life imprisonment.

Under the plea agreement, he faces a twenty to twenty-five year Guideline sentencing range.

At the beginning of the hearing, Defense counsel advised the Court he had previously

reviewed the plea agreement with Francisco. However, just that morning, Mr. Bates was

informed by his client that he had been held for the past eight days in segregated confinement

on suicide watch. Francisco confirmed this information to the Court, explaining he had

swallowed three razor blades in a suicide attempt. The Court questioned Francisco in some

detail concerning his competence, but eventually determined to proceed.

At several points during the plea colloquy, the Court, explaining the rights being

abrogated and other consequences of the plea to Defendant, had to use more care and proceed

at a slower pace than was usual. While questioning Francisco about the facts supporting the

indictment, he once again refused to admit knowledge of the two hundred and thirteen

kilograms of cocaine hidden in the truck. Defendant admitted driving the truck from Mexico

Case 4:05-cr-00521-RCC-CRP Document 39 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

into the United States, and knew he was to leave the truck for others to pick up. When asked

if he was to be paid for doing so, Francisco responded that he was to be paid one million and

ninety thousand dollars.

NOLO CONTENDRE PLEA

The Court has the discretion to accept a plea of nolo contendre.

Before accepting a plea of nolo contendre, the court must

consider the parties' views and the public interest in the effective

administration of justice.

Rule 11(a)(3), FED.R.CRIM.P. Whether the Government objects to the plea is an important

factor for the Court to consider. United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031, 1036 (6th Cir.

2001). Since the prosecutor suggested the no contest plea in this case, the Court assumes the

Government does not object to the plea.

Francisco has good reason to agree to the no contest plea. The Government has a

strong case against him and the plea agreement offers a significant reduction in the

sentencing range. Therefore, the Court could appropriately exercise its discretion to accept

a no contest plea in the circumstances of this case. In particular, Defendant's lengthy and

troubled history of mental health problems may explain his inability to admit his criminal

conduct. United States v. Bagliore, 182 F.Supp. 714, 716 (E.D.N.Y. 1960).

Because the Court has doubts about Defendant's competence to proceed at this time,

the issue of whether to accept a nolo contendre plea will not be resolved at this time. If

Defendant is determined competent to enter a plea, then a new hearing under Rule 11 will

be required. At that time, Defendant must clearly state whether he is pleading guilty or nolo

contendre. If the Defendant asks the Court for permission to plead nolo contendre, the

Government must indicate whether or not it objects to the Court allowing that plea, and

whether the objection is based on a blanket national policy or individual consideration of this

case. 

COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL

The evidentiary hearing in this case was vacated, principally due to Defendant's

refusal to participate in the forensic re-evaluation by Dr. Martinez. Dr. Martinez' concern

Case 4:05-cr-00521-RCC-CRP Document 39 Filed 05/26/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

has been that while Defendant is factually competent, his depression may prevent him from

being able to rationally assist counsel. Apparently, Francisco had a severe depressive

episode in the week prior to the change of plea hearing, including a suicide attempt.

Moreover, Defendant's response about how much he was to be paid to drive the truck was

not rational. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine the competence of

the Defendant to proceed at this time.

The Court will set an evidentiary hearing for THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2006, AT 1:30 P.M.

The witnesses previously disclosed may be called. Additional witnesses may be disclosed

at any time prior to June 30, 2006. A status conference concerning the evidentiary hearing

is scheduled for MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2006, AT 1:30 P.M.

Concerning Defendant's plea of guilty, at this time, the Court recommends that the

District Judge not accept the plea of guilty because of a lack of factual basis and concerns

about the competency of the Defendant.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten (10) days from the date of

this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any objections filed should be filed as CR 05-

00521-TUC-RCC.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.

Case 4:05-cr-00521-RCC-CRP Document 39 Filed 05/26/06 Page 5 of 5