Opinion ID: 3063335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Indictment and Guilty Plea Colloquy

Text: A federal grand jury indicted Martinez and her codefendant, Fannie Sue Young, for encouraging and inducing five aliens “to come to, enter and reside in the United States, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, and residence in the United States was in violation of law,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). Martinez agreed to plead guilty and tendered her plea before a magistrate judge. During her plea hearing, the magistrate judge placed Martinez under oath. To ensure that her plea was voluntary, the magistrate judge elicited information from Martinez regarding her mental and physical health. At the time of the hearing, Martinez was 61 years old, had graduated from Interactive College, and verified that she could read and write. Martinez swore that she had never been 3 treated for a mental illness or substance abuse, and that she did not suffer from any mental or emotional disability. She added that none of her daily medications affected her ability to think or reason. Martinez acknowledged that she: (1) had received a copy of the indictment and understood the charge against her; (2) had discussed the charge with her counsel; and (3) was satisfied with her counsel’s representation. The magistrate judge ensured that Martinez had not: (1) received any promises to persuade her to plead guilty; or (2) been threatened or coerced to plead guilty. Martinez confirmed that she was pleading guilty of her own free will. Martinez understood that she had the right to plead not guilty and that entering a guilty plea would waive her right to: (1) a speedy and public jury trial; (2) representation by counsel, including court-appointed counsel, at every stage of the proceedings; (3) require that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty of the charged offense; (4) confront the government’s witnesses; (5) testify; (6) present evidence; and (7) call her own witnesses and compel them to testify. Martinez acknowledged that her guilty plea would waive her right against compelled self-incrimination. The government informed Martinez of the elements of her offense, that she had “encouraged or induced an alien to reside in the United States knowing and 4 with reckless disregard that that alien’s coming to, entry, or residence in the United States would be a violation of US law.” The government explained that no mandatory minimum sentence applied, and that the maximum possible penalty was 10 years’ imprisonment, 5 years of probation, 3 years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. Martinez stated that she understood “some” of the possible consequences of her guilty plea. The magistrate judge responded that she would ensure that Martinez understood all of the consequences, and asked whether Martinez had any questions. At this point, Martinez’s counsel stated that he could communicate well with Martinez when he spoke slowly and used “inflection to assist in cognitive processing.” Defense counsel thought that Martinez had not understood the government’s explanation of the penalties. The magistrate judge repeated the potential sentence, and Martinez stated that she understood. The magistrate judge asked whether Martinez had any questions, and Martinez responded: “I understand it more better.” The magistrate judge asked Martinez’s counsel to ensure that she understood. Counsel conferred with Martinez and informed the magistrate judge that he believed that Martinez understood. Defense counsel noted that his earlier concern stemmed from the fact that Martinez may answer “yes” to a question “because leaving a question hanging in the air is uncomfortable.” However, 5 defense counsel had asked Martinez questions regarding the potential sentence, and she had answered them correctly. Martinez informed the magistrate judge that she understood. Martinez agreed that she would not answer “yes” to a question she did not understand. The magistrate judge explained that the district court could impose the maximum sentence upon Martinez, and that the court could sentence her exactly as it would have had she proceeded to trial. Martinez initially stated that she understood, but then said: “I kinda understand. I kinda do and I don’t.” The magistrate judge reiterated that: (1) Martinez did not have to plead guilty and could proceed to trial instead; and (2) the court could impose the same sentence regardless of whether she proceeded to trial or pled guilty. Martinez then stated that she understood. Martinez also understood the applicability of the advisory guidelines to her case, including that the court may sentence her above or below her guidelines range. The government presented the factual basis for the plea. From approximately September 2007 to July 12, 2008, Martinez, aided and abetted by Young, drove many people to the Georgia Department of Driver Services (“DDS”), including the five individuals listed in the indictment. At the DDS, Martinez provided the individuals with lease agreements that indicated that they 6 were Georgia residents. The individuals also presented birth certificates and/or social security cards indicating that they were United States citizens. Martinez assisted the individuals with completing the necessary forms to obtain a Georgia identification card. The forms indicated that the individuals were United States citizens, although they were not. The government conceded that it was unclear whether Martinez provided all the documents, but noted that she received payment for providing some documents. The government pointed out that one individual paid $600 to Martinez, and this individual informed the government that Martinez advertised her services in a grocery store. The government stated that Martinez knew that the individuals listed in the indictment were illegal aliens. Martinez also admitted to assisting over 100 people obtain documentation, 35 of whom she knew were illegal aliens. And, a search of Martinez’s residence revealed a ledger in which she listed 170 names and noted how much each person had paid her, and what type of documentation she obtained for them. Martinez acknowledged that the government presented an accurate description of her conduct. When the magistrate judge asked about the sufficiency of the plea colloquy, Martinez’s counsel stated that the magistrate judge did not need to ask Martinez any additional questions before accepting her plea. The magistrate judge then 7 asked “is there any reason you know of, based on capacity or any other basis, why I should not recommend that her guilty plea be accepted?” Martinez’s counsel stated that it was appropriate to accept Martinez’s guilty plea, noting that: I know that we’ve struggled through this plea hearing a little bit and I know that . . . Jean [Martinez] has some problems understanding things sometimes. But I don’t think that there is a failing of her expression or her desire to admit to the charge in this indictment and to the conduct which has been described by the Government. So I think we’re okay. The magistrate judge asked whether Martinez had any questions, and, when Martinez did not respond, Martinez and her counsel conferred off the record. Counsel then expressed concern that Martinez did not actually know some of the people that the government stated that she helped. The magistrate judge allowed a recess, but noted that she was not concerned with whether Martinez knew the names of the people, but with whether she acknowledged her conduct with respect to those people. After a thirty minute recess, Martinez’s counsel explained that, when the magistrate judge asked if she had any questions, Martinez informed counsel that she denied some of the offense conduct recited by the government. Counsel noted that, during the recess, he discussed the offense with Martinez, but that she “was not answering questions today to me that she had easily answered in the past, and I felt like it was almost as if we were meeting for the first time. I really had some 8 concerns about that.” However, counsel stated that reviewing the offense conduct with Martinez refreshed her recollection, and that Martinez then explained the conduct in her own words in a way that mirrored the government’s recitation. Counsel then stated: “So I think everything’s okay now.” Counsel further noted that Martinez explained that she did not wish to deny the offense conduct, but that she wanted to clarify that she did not know the people in the indictment prior to taking them to the DDS, and that she did not prepare a fraudulent lease for each one of them. Counsel stated that he was “satisfied again that she does want to plead guilty today to the offense conduct.” Defense counsel stated that Martinez agreed that the government’s recitation of her conduct was correct. Martinez then acknowledged that her counsel accurately stated her position, and she admitted to the conduct that the government described in support of the guilty plea. Martinez stated that she did not have any questions, and entered a guilty plea. Martinez confirmed that her plea was made freely and voluntarily, and that she was guilty. The magistrate judge found that Martinez was “fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that she’s aware of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, that her plea of guilty is made knowingly and voluntarily and that it is supported by an independent basis in fact establishing the elements of 9 the charge to which she has pled guilty.” The magistrate judge prepared a report (“R&R”) recommending that the district court accept the guilty plea. Martinez did not object to the R&R. The district court accepted the plea and adjudicated Martinez guilty.