U.S. v. TORRES-SANTIAGO

Criminal No. 15-079 [6] (DRD).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s), v. MIGUEL TORRES-SANTIAGO [6], Defendant(s).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jose Padilla-Galarza, Defendant, represented by Hector A. Deliz & Melanie Carrillo-Jimenez , Lcda. Melanie Carrillo-Jimenez.

Jomar Hernandez-Roman, Defendant, represented by Jason Gonzalez-Delgado , Gonzalez & Gonzalez Law Office.

Samuel Figueroa, Defendant, represented by Luz M. Rios-Rosario .

Johan Davila-Rivera, Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Boucher-Martinez .

Miguel Torres-Santiago, Defendant, represented by Lydia Lizarribar-Buxo , Lizarribar Masini Law Office.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Alum , United States Attorneys Office.


ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: RULE 11 PROCEEDINGS

DANIEL R. DOMÍNGUEZ, District Judge.

The Court has evaluated the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of the Rule 11 proceedings regarding defendant contained in the Report and Recommendation, Docket No. 152.

The principal consideration is whether that plea was knowingly, voluntary and intelligently made within the terms of Rule 11, United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831, 835-837 (1st Cir.1996). In order to ascertain whether defendant made a knowingly, voluntary and intelligent plea, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has identified three core concerns: absence of coercion, defendant's understanding of the charges and the defendant's knowledge of the consequences of the guilty plea. United States v. Gray, 63 F.3d 60-61 (1st Cir.1995), United States v. Cotal Crespo, 47 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 827 (1995).

The Court in examining the three core concerns must "review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Rule 11 hearing, rather than apply a `talismatic test,'" United States v. Cotal Crespo, 47 F.3d at 4-5.

The Court having examined the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge finds that the plea entered by the defendant was knowingly, voluntary and intelligent as understood in the terms of Rule 11. The plea of defendant is therefore, accepted and the defendant is adjudged guilty as to Count Three of the Second Superseding Indictment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases