Opinion
21-20377
04-17-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN FRANKLIN, Defendant.
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA
DAVID R. GRAND, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. REPORT AND FINDINGS
On June 9, 2021, defendant Kevin Franklin (“Franklin”) was charged in an indictment with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and being an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). (ECF No. 14). Franklin was arraigned on June 21, 2021. A plea hearing date was adjourned multiple times, but on March 31, 2023, Franklin consented to proceed with a plea hearing before the undersigned, and the Honorable Stephen J. Murphy referred that matter to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3). (ECF Nos. 46, 47). The undersigned then scheduled a plea hearing for April 14, 2023. (ECF No. 48).
The plea hearing took place as scheduled on April 14, 2023, in the duty court courtroom. Franklin and his counsel appeared before me and, pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, Franklin pled guilty to Count One of the indictment, felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and being an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). In open court, I examined Franklin under oath, and advised and questioned him regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following the questioning, Franklin unequivocally testified that he wished to enter a guilty plea pursuant to the signed Rule 11 Plea Agreement.
Based upon Franklin's answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND that: (1) Franklin is competent to enter a plea; (2) Franklin's plea is entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, without coercion; (3) the offense to which Franklin pleaded guilty is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense; and (4) application of the armed career criminal sentencing enhancement is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of its essential elements. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court's consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Franklin's guilty plea be accepted, Franklin be adjudged guilty of the offense charged, and that the Court impose the sentence it determines is appropriate.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report, Findings, and Recommendation but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2), and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge.
A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.