United States v. Franqui-Marcano, 3:12-cr-00153

Franqui-Marcano was charged in a multi-count indictment and pleaded guilty to count one (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime) under Rule 11.
The plea occurred August 17, 2012 before a United States Magistrate Judge with consent to proceed before a magistrate.
Defendant was informed of the differences between magistrate and district judges and voluntarily consented to a magistrate proceeding.
Rule 11 inquiry established competence, understanding of charges, and voluntariness of the plea.
Defendant understood maximum penalties: 5 years to life, $250,000 fine, up to five years supervised release, plus a $100 special assessment and forfeiture.
Plea Agreement explained government’s recommendations and waiver of appeal; sentencing remains with the district judge and the guidelines are advisory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary.	Franqui-Marcano was advised of rights and consequences, with no coercion.	Defendant asserts plea was voluntary and based on his guilt.	Yes; plea knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Whether the defendant was competent to plead.	Court found defendant capable after inquiry and demeanor.	No argument challenging competence raised.	Yes; competent to plead.
Whether the defendant understood the penalties and Plea Agreement.	Defendant acknowledged maximum penalties and understood agreement terms.	No challenge to understanding; accepted terms.	Yes; understanding established.
Whether the waiver of appellate rights and other concessions were properly explained.	Waiver and government rights were explained and accepted by defendant.	No challenge to waiver raised.	Yes; waiver valid.
Whether there was a valid factual basis for the guilty plea.	Government provided a factual basis acknowledged by defendant.	No contrary position raised.	Yes; factual basis established.

United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2004) (magistrate may conduct Rule 11 plea with defendant consent)
United States v. Hernandez-Wilson, 186 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (Rule 11 requires understanding of charges and consequences)
United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (plea must be voluntary and informed)
United States v. Allard, 926 F.2d 1237 (1st Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requires awareness of consequences)
Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 1994) (certain procedural standards for pleadings and appeals)
United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (appeal rights and Rule 11 procedures)