United States v. Feliz

• Decision Date: 03 December 2019
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 15-421,Crim. No. 14-327
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MELVIN FELIZ, IRVING OLIVERO-PENA, and ROBERT CRAWFORD, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MELVIN FELIZ, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MELVIN FELIZ, IRVING OLIVERO-PENA, and ROBERT CRAWFORD, Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MELVIN FELIZ, Defendant.

Crim. No. 14-327
Crim. No. 15-421

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

December 3, 2019

OPINION & ORDER

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

Melvin Feliz was criminally charged in the two above-captioned cases, which I will call the "drug case" (Crim. No. 14-327) and the "wire fraud case" (Crim. No. 15-421). In the drug case, he pled guilty, admitting under oath that he had engaged in trafficking involving over 20 kilograms of cocaine and $549,000 in cash. In the wire fraud case, he pled guilty to a phony-invoice scam in the amount of approximately $7.8 million, as well as related acts of tax evasion. The agreed sentence in the drug case (a package deal for Feliz and two codefendants) was 120 months; the agreed sentence in Feliz's wire fraud case was 48 months, to run consecutive to the drug sentence.

Page 2

Now before the court in both cases are Mr. Feliz's motions to withdraw both pleas of guilty, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d). (14-327 DE 156, 159; 15-421 DE 79 ("Notice")).¹ Because they are parallel and potentially interdependent, I discuss those two motions together in this Opinion, which will be filed in both cases.

Under Rule 11(d), either of two standards could potentially govern this motion: Before the court accepts a plea, the defendant may withdraw it for "any reason or no reason"; after the court accepts a plea, the defendant must show a "fair and just reason" for withdrawal. To ascertain which of these standards applies, then, I must ascertain whether the Court has "accept[ed] the plea" for purposes of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d). For the reasons expressed below, I hold that the court has accepted the plea, that the "fair and just reason" standard therefore applies, and that Mr. Feliz has failed to meet it. The motions are therefore denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Guilty plea in the drug case

1. Background of the plea

On June 6, 2014, the grand jury returned an indictment in the drug case charging Mr. Feliz with conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Also charged were two codefendants, Irving Olivero-Pena and Robert Crawford.

Page 3

On October 21, 2014, the government filed an enhanced penalty information, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a), stating that Mr. Feliz had a prior, 1989 conviction of a felony drug offense. (DE 62) The effect of the information (if its allegations were proven, of course) would have been to increase the mandatory minimum sentence.² See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

2. The guilty plea proceedings in the drug case

On February 4, 2015, following some fairly intensive motion practice, Mr. Feliz and his codefendants, Olivero-Pena and Crawford, agreed to a "package deal" entailing simultaneous pleas of guilty in the drug case. All three written plea agreements were made under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Each of the three defendants stipulated to a sentence of 120 months' imprisonment, the statutory minimum for an offense involving 5 or more kilograms of cocaine. All agreed to factual stipulations that the offense involved 20 kilograms of cocaine and some $549,000 in cash. In Mr. Feliz's case, the government agreed to dismiss the enhanced penalty information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, thus restoring the unenhanced mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. (See Plea agreement, 14-327 DE 144; Transcript of plea hearing in drug case ("GPD Tr."), 14-327 DE 151.)

At the plea hearing, the Court conducted the inquiry required by Rule 11(b), Fed. R. Crim. P. It ensured that Mr. Feliz was mentally and physically fit to participate. It confirmed that he had read the plea agreement, had gone over it thoroughly with his attorney, and understood it. (GPD Tr. 10-11) Through

Page 4

questioning, the Court determined that there had been no coercion of the plea. (GPD Tr. 11-12)

The Court also accepted and filed the Application to Plead Guilty (or "Rule 11 form"), signed by Mr. Feliz, which independently confirmed what the Court elicited orally at the hearing: that the defendant understood the nature of the plea agreement, charges, and penalties, and was pleading voluntarily to an offense he had in fact committed. (DE 143; GPD Tr. 12-13)

At several points, the Court reviewed with the defendant the particulars of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement—i.e., that the parties had stipulated to a sentence of 120 months and that the defendant had a "right to get out of this plea deal if the sentence is anything other . . . ." (GPD Tr. 12) (The Rule 11(c)(1)(C)-related passages in the transcript are collected and set forth more fully at Section I.A.3, immediately following.)

The Court reviewed the essential elements of the narcotics charges. Mr. Feliz acknowledged that he had reviewed them with his attorney and understood them. (GPD Tr. 14-15) The Court reviewed the trial-related rights that would be waived as a result of pleading guilty and warned of various collateral consequences. The defendant acknowledged that he understood and that his plea of guilty meant that there would be no trial. (Id. 15-18)

The Court then advised Mr. Feliz as to the statutory minimum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, the statutory maximum of life, and the other significant sentencing consequences of the plea. (GPD Tr. 18-19) He was advised of his rights under the Sentencing Guidelines and warned that the factual stipulations did not bind the Court. Here, as elsewhere, the Court clarified that these warnings were subject to the overarching Rule 11(c)(1)(C) proviso that a sentence of other than 120 months would give defendant the "right to get out of that plea" or to "withdraw the guilty plea." (Id. 19-21) The Court reviewed the plea agreement's waiver of the right to bring an appeal or a collateral challenge if the court imposed a sentence of 120 months. (Id. 21-23)

The Court questioned Mr. Feliz's counsel, Mr. Joyce, as to the "package deal" aspect of the plea. The object of that questioning was to ensure that Mr.

Page 5

Feliz was properly represented by counsel who had acted in his individual interest. Mr. Joyce confirmed that he believed the plea benefited his client, particularly in that the enhanced penalty information would be withdrawn, reducing the mandatory minimum. (GPD Tr. 24-25) I confirmed directly with Mr. Feliz that a joint internal negotiation had occurred among the three defendants, via their counsel; that Mr. Joyce had represented Mr. Feliz's individual interest in those negotiations; and that the plea would not occur unless all three defendants went forward with the deal. (Id. 25-26) The Court again confirmed that the government had not coerced the plea. Mr. Feliz explicitly acknowledged that neither a co-defendant nor anyone else had forced, threatened, or coerced him to plead guilty. This was, he stated under oath, his own voluntary decision. (Id. 26-27)

The Court gave Mr. Feliz the opportunity, if he wished, to change his mind or withdraw any of his answers. He declined. The Court ensured that Mr. Feliz was pleading guilty because he was guilty in fact of the drug offense:

THE COURT: Now, I'm going to ask you a question, sometimes people stumble on, but it's important, the question is Why are you pleading guilty? And by that I mean, are you guilty in fact, or are you pleading for some other reason?

Maybe you don't understand the question. Would you like me to clarify it?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes, please do.

THE COURT: Sometimes people plead guilty, but later say "I didn't really do it. I wasn't really guilty. I did it because someone I love told me to. I did it because I was afraid. I did it because it helped my co-defendants", or some other reason. What I want to know is, are you pleading guilty because you are guilty in fact?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: I'm guilty.

(GPD Tr. 27)

I again ensured that Mr. Feliz had consulted with his attorney and understood the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement:

Page 6

THE COURT: Now, if I reject the plea agreement, or rather, I may reject it, that is not to accept it. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes.

THE COURT: But if that happens, you or the Government may elect to be released from this plea agreement, that is, you'll be returned to the status you are in before today. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes.

(GPD 27:5-13) The Court carefully reviewed the proviso that a sentence other than the stipulated sentence of 120 months would give him, or the government, the right to withdraw. (GPD Tr. 27-28)

The Court then elicited a factual basis for the plea, delegating the delivery of the questions to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, as is customary in this District. (GPD Tr. 28) Mr. Feliz expressed concerns about the accuracy of the starting and ending dates of the charged conspiracy, and the AUSA responded by taking a break to confer with defense counsel and revise his question.³ (GPD Tr. 31-32)

The factual-basis colloquy resumed:

[AUSA] URBANO: Okay.

Mr. Feliz, from on or about January, 2012, to on or about December, 2012, in the district of New Jersey and elsewhere, did you conspire and agree with others to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes.

MR. URBANO: And were Irving Olivero-Pena and Robert Crawford two of the individuals with whom you conspired?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes.

MR. URBANO: Did you enter into the agreement with those individuals knowingly and intentionally, that is not by accident or mistake?

Page 7

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes.

MR. URBANO: Did you know that the purpose of that agreement with those individuals was to distribute and possess with intent to the distribute cocaine?

DEFENDANT FELIZ: Yes.

MR. URBANO: And in furtherance of the conspiracy, on or about October 22nd, 2012, did Irving Olivero-Pena, Robert

...