Opinion ID: 44184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Plea Colloquy

Text: In a written plea agreement, Martines-Chaves pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The plea agreement stated that Martines-Chaves was “pleading guilty because she is in fact guilty of the crime charged in Count One of the Indictment.” Further, the plea agreement contained a sentence-appeal waiver that excluded only upward departures, as follows: LIMITED WAIVER OF APPEAL: To the maximum extent permitted by federal law, the defendant voluntarily and expressly waives the 1 After briefing in this case, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), which extended Blakely’s holding to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, Martines-Chaves’s Blakely argument is now a Booker argument. 2 right to appeal her sentence and the right to collaterally attack her sentence in any post-conviction proceeding on any ground, except that the defendant may file a direct appeal of an upward departure from the otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range. The defendant understands that this Plea Agreement does not limit the Government’s right to appeal, but if the Government appeals the sentence imposed, the defendant may also file a direct appeal of her sentence. During the plea colloquy, the district court advised Martines-Chaves of the rights she waived by pleading guilty. Martines-Chaves then stated that she did not know if she wanted to plead guilty. The district court responded that if she did not want to plead guilty, she would get a trial. Martines-Chaves then stated that she wanted to plead guilty. After Martines-Chaves signed the plea agreement, the district court asked her if anyone had promised her anything that was not contained in the agreement. Martines-Chaves acknowledged that no other promises had been made. She further acknowledged that no one had threatened or forced her into pleading guilty. The government then gave the factual basis for the plea. According to the government, on March 9, 2003, an Arkansas State Police trooper stopped codefendant Manual Perez for a traffic violation on an interstate near Russellville, Arkansas. After giving Perez a warning, the trooper asked Perez if he could search the vehicle. Perez consented, and the trooper found approximately 12 kilograms of a substance containing methamphetamine in a backpack in the car. The trooper 3 then arrested Perez and took him to the county sheriff’s department. Upon questioning, Perez told police that he was hired to transport the drugs for Oscar Cardona, another co-defendant in this case. Members of the Arkansas State Police and the DEA then recorded a series of conversations between Cardona and Perez. During the conversations, Cardona instructed Perez to drive to Atlanta with the drugs. An unidentified male also said that he could have “the female pick up the meth.” On March 11, 2003, Cardona and Perez met at a gas station. Defendant Martines-Chaves arrived with Cardona in a Lincoln Navigator. Cardona told Perez to wait at a nearby Waffle House restaurant while he drove Perez’s car to a house to secure the drugs. Agents then observed Cardona leave the gas station and defendant MartinesChaves follow in the Navigator. At an intersection, Cardona and Martines-Chaves had a conversation, after which Cardona traveled in one direction and MartinesChaves traveled in another. Agents followed Cardona to a residence where he was arrested. He stated that he worked for Martines-Chaves, that he had picked up two loads of methamphetamine for her in the past, and that she had rented that residence where he was arrested to store the drugs. At the drug-storage residence, agents found empty kilogram wrappers, drug residue, a chemical known for 4 manufacturing methamphetamine, and approximately $10,000 in cash. On Cardona’s person, agents found keys to the drug-storage residence and to defendant Martines-Chaves’s residence. After the government’s recitation, the district court asked defendant Martines-Chaves if the government’s description of her involvement was correct. Martines-Chaves responded that “[t]here are some things which are true, some things which are very true, and there are some things which are not true.” The district court then asked Martines-Chaves if she had entered into an agreement to distribute methamphetamine. Martines-Chaves indicated that she had not. The district court then ended the plea colloquy and set the case for trial.