Opinion ID: 44184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Plea Colloquy

Text: On August 7, 2003, defendant Martines-Chaves appeared again before the district court to enter a guilty plea. The district court gave Martines-Chaves all of the advisements required under Rule 11. For example, the district court affirmed that Martines-Chaves had sufficient access to an interpreter in order to communicate with her lawyer, that she understood her plea agreement, that she had reviewed it with her lawyer, and that she was satisfied with the representation of her lawyers. The district court also affirmed that no one had forced MartinesChaves to plead guilty and that no one had promised her anything other than what 5 was in the plea agreement. The government provided the same factual basis as the previous plea colloquy, adding a couple of facts. The government stated that Cardona told the arresting agents that on the morning of March 11, 2003, Martines-Chaves had given Cardona a key ring containing the keys to the drug-storage residence and to her residence. Further, a search of Martines-Chaves’s residence yielded methamphetamine and an electronic scale. Numerous papers related to drug transactions also were found. The district court then asked Martines-Chaves if the facts stated by the government were correct. Martines-Chaves responded that the government “described what Cardona told [the investigator], and Cardona said some things which are not true.” The district court then specifically asked Martines-Chaves if she entered into an agreement with Cardona and Perez to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute it. Martines-Chaves replied in the affirmative as follows: COURT: Okay. You are charged, . . . with conspiring with Mr. Cardona and Mr. Perez to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Do you understand that? MARTINES-CHAVES: Yes. COURT: All right. In order to be guilty of that crime you would have had to have entered into an agreement with those gentlemen to do something unlawful. 6 In this case, the unlawful act as charged is possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it. Did you enter into such an agreement with Mr. Cardona. MARTINES-CHAVES: Yes. Prior to, I did have some agreements with Mr. Cardona. COURT: All right. And was the agreement to take methamphetamine into his possession or your possession for further distribution? MARTINES-CHAVES: No. Because somebody supplies the stuff to him. He is sent the stuff to distribute to a number of people and one of the persons that often distribute[s] the drugs was me. COURT: All right. Good enough. And you knew it was methamphetamine? MARTINES-CHAVES: Yes. During the plea colloquy, Martines-Chaves thus admitted that methamphetamine was supplied to Cardona for distribution to a number of people and that one of those persons was Martines-Chaves. Thus, Martines-Chaves expressly admitted that she was involved with Cardona’s distribution of the methamphetamine and had agreed to be part of his scheme to distribute methamphetamine. The district court found that there was a factual basis for Martines-Chaves to plead guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court also specifically discussed the sentence-appeal waiver in the plea agreement, ensuring that Martines-Chaves’s counsel believed the appeal waiver was in the defendant’s best interest and also that Martines-Chaves understood that she was limiting her right to appeal her sentence. At the end of the 7 plea colloquy, the district court accepted Martines-Chaves’s guilty plea and