United States v. Moncrief
1:17-cr-20751
E.D. Mich.Jan 4, 2018Background
- Defendant Perris Demarius Moncrief appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris on January 4, 2018 and pled guilty to count one of the indictment on consent of the parties.
- The Magistrate conducted a Rule 11(b) colloquy, examining the defendant under oath and confirming competence and voluntariness of the plea.
- The Magistrate found the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, entered without coercion, and supported by an independent factual basis containing each essential element of the offense.
- The Magistrate ordered preparation of a presentence investigation report.
- The Magistrate recommended that, subject to the district court’s consideration of the plea agreement under Rule 11(c), the plea be accepted, defendant adjudged guilty, and sentence imposed.
- The Report advised parties of the 14-day objection period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and warned that failure to file specific objections constitutes waiver of further appeal, citing controlling authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to plead | Government: defendant competent to enter plea | Defendant: (consented) no contest to competency | Magistrate found defendant competent to plead |
| Voluntariness/knowing plea | Government: plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary | Defendant: (consented) plea was voluntary | Magistrate found plea knowing, intelligent, voluntary |
| Factual basis for offense | Government: independent basis in fact exists showing essential elements | Defendant: (admitted) factual basis sufficient | Magistrate found an independent factual basis supporting the offense |
| Procedure for acceptance & objections | Government: recommend acceptance subject to Rule 11(c) review; objections allowed under Rule 72(b) | Defendant: consented to Magistrate handling and entry of plea | Magistrate recommended acceptance and advised of 14-day objection period and waiver consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to file specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report waives further appeal)
- Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (procedural waiver principles in the Sixth Circuit)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (same waiver/objection guidance)
- Willis v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 931 F.2d 390 (6th Cir. 1991) (making some objections but failing to raise others does not preserve all objections)
- Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987) (same principle regarding preservation of objections)