United States v. Ledesma-Nova
3:24-cr-00390
| D.P.R. | Jun 20, 2025Background
- Eddy Agustin Ledesma-Nova was indicted on one count for attempting to re-enter the United States after a prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2).
- The defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count One of the indictment.
- A magistrate judge conducted the Rule 11 plea colloquy with Ledesma-Nova’s consent.
- The court thoroughly questioned Ledesma-Nova regarding his competency, understanding of the charges, and awareness of the rights he would waive by pleading guilty.
- Ledesma-Nova confirmed he was acting voluntarily, understood the sentencing risks, and that no promises outside the plea agreement were made.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the guilty plea and adjudication of guilt, pending review by a district judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Rule 11 Plea Colloquy | Plea is knowing, voluntary, and meets Rule 11 standards | No objection; defendant concurs on voluntariness and understanding | Court finds Rule 11 satisfied; recommends accepting plea |
| Competence to Plead Guilty | Ledesma-Nova is competent | No issue raised; defendant concurs | Found competent to enter plea |
| Understanding of Rights & Consequences | Defendant understands maximum penalties, waivers, consequences | Defendant affirms understanding | Found to fully understand rights and consequences |
| Factual Basis for Guilty Plea | Government would prove all elements; plea based on admissions | Defendant admits facts supporting all elements | Factual basis for plea established |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hernandez-Wilson, 186 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (addresses knowing and voluntary guilty plea standard under Rule 11)
- United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (discusses Rule 11 colloquy and core concerns in accepting a guilty plea)
- United States v. Allard, 926 F.2d 1237 (1st Cir. 1991) (identifies three core Rule 11 concerns for guilty plea proceedings)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (establishes requirement for understanding nature of charge and consequences during guilty plea)
- United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (failure to file objections to R&R waives further review)