Opinion
CASE NO. 18-20458-CR-MARTINEZ/AOR
09-04-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GEOVANNY GOMEZ-GARCIA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the government's request for Garcia Hearing [DE. 8]. This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 [D.E. 9]. The undersigned held a hearing on this matter on September 4, 2018.
At the hearing, the undersigned conducted a colloquy with Defendant Geovanny Gomez-Garcia pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c) wherein Defendant was advised of his right to counsel that is free of the appearance of conflict and the ramifications of waiving that right. Defendant stated, under oath, that he understood that right and the ramifications of waiving that right.
Based on the proceedings held on September 4, 2018, the undersigned finds that Defendant Geovanny Gomez-Garcia has freely and voluntarily accepted continued representation by his current counsel notwithstanding the potential of the appearance of conflict due to his counsel's current representation of another person in a separate case. Accordingly, it is RESPECFULLY RECOMMENDED that attorney Todd Yoder, Esq. be permitted to continue to represent Defendant through the anticipated change of plea, sentencing and post-sentencing proceedings. Should the expected resolution of the case not come to fruition, thereby requiring trial, the undersigned recommends that the conflict issue be revisited at that time.
Pursuant to Local Magistrate Judge Rule 4(b), the parties have fourteen days from the date of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Jose E. Martinez. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained herein. See Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Further, "failure to object in accordance with the provisions of [28 U.S.C.] § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions." See 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (I.O.P. - 3).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Miami, Florida this 4th day of September, 2018.
/s/_________
ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: United States District Judge Jose E. Martinez
Counsel of Record