Opinion ID: 6319949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Change-of-Plea Hearing

Text: At the outset of her change-of-plea hearing, the district court confirmed with Kitts that she was in an appropriate mental state to participate in the proceeding. The court then The Presentence Report primarily focuses on Clients A, B, 1 and C, but Kitts had seven total victims. - 3 - asked whether she had received a copy of the information, understood that she was charged with six counts, and had an opportunity to discuss the charges with counsel. Kitts answered yes to these questions. The court advised her that, by pleading guilty, she would be waiving her constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury. Again, Kitts confirmed that she understood. In response to another inquiry from the court, Kitts stated that she had discussed the waiver with her attorney. Neither party raised any objections during this portion of the proceeding. The district court then proceeded with the plea colloquy. Kitts affirmed that she was neither forced to plead guilty nor had she received any assurances that induced her to plead guilty. Then, as directed by the court, the government detailed the maximum statutory penalties applicable to the charges. In relevant part, the government explained that the aggravated identity theft charge carried a mandatory term of incarceration of two years, which shall not be concurrent with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. The government also reported the maximum five-year sentence for investment adviser fraud and the maximum twenty-year sentences that accompanied the wire fraud counts. When asked if she understood that the district court had the authority to impose a term of imprisonment of up to five years - 4 - on Count One, charging investment adviser fraud; up to twenty years on Counts Two through Five, the wire fraud counts; and a minimum mandatory sentence of two years on the identity theft charge, Kitts said yes. Noting that Kitts was upset, the district court confirmed that she still understood the court's questions. After informing Kitts of the role of the sentencing guidelines in the court's sentencing decision, the court explained the rights she would forfeit by pleading guilty, including the right to a trial by jury, the right to a trial in which she would have been presumed innocent, the right to assistance of counsel in her defense during the trial, and the right to confront the witnesses against her. The court then asked the government to summarize the facts that would have been offered at trial. Kitts agreed with the prosecutor's summary of the facts as they related to the essential elements of the charges, although she disputed the exact monetary amounts involved. The district court then accepted Kitts's guilty plea, finding that it was knowing and voluntary, and that she understood the charges against her and the consequences of her plea.