Fernando Parra appeared Tuesday in one of the few open court events in the public corruption investigation, which became public in a big way a little more than a year ago with a raid on the El Paso County Courthouse and a guilty plea by former county judge chief of staff Travis Ketner.

Parra was changing his plea from not guilty to three charges that involved obscenity and child pornography to guilty to one charge of obscenity – no child pornography – and one charge related to public corruption.

It was not a big surprise. The pornography-related charges were developed in the course of the public corruption investigation, and were not subject to the same sealing of information as has been the course in the public corruption investigation.

So Parra’s February bond hearing was in open court. When his attorney filed papers to change his plea, indicating a deal with the government, those papers were not sealed.

District Judge Frank Montalvo has overseen the investigation, and all the plea agreements – which have come in the form of a document called an information -- have taken place in closed hearings in his court. That procedure was challenged by activist Carl Starr, and the challenge rebuffed by Montalvo.

***

As the hearing in federal District Judge Frank Montalvo’s courtroom began, Parra stood handcuffed, wearing black pants and a white shirt. His hair was close-cropped.

Montalvo asked Parra, is it correct you are here to enter a plea of guilty? He asked Parra to raise his right hand. The bailiff struggled with the lock for a moment, and the handcuffs were off.

Montalvo asked Parra for his full name, and several other questions:

-- Mr. Parra, are you suffering from any type of illness? No sir, probably just butterflies.

-- Any anxiety, depression or confusion that would keep you from understanding the proceedings? I fully understand.

Montalvo explained that he was asking the questions because "I personally want to be sure you understand what is happening here today because I am going to be asking a lot of questions."

It was important, Montalvo said, that "I can be certain you are speaking the truth to me."

At that point Debra Kanoff, the assistant U.S. Attorney who is handling the public corruption case, asked Montalvo if he wanted her to summarize the cases -- plural -- "now or later."

"Both," replied Montalvo.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Gregory, who is working with Kanof in prosecuting the public corruption cases, read the first plea.

***

She said from Oct. 8, 2005 to Sept. 7, 2006, Parra took and received via interactive computer service, several moving pictures. She read some titles: "Pigs at the trough," "gay dad and son sex," "bondage muscle daddy."

Gregory read the sentencing guidelines, saying that the minimum was five years in prison. At that, someone corrected her. The MAXIMUM was five years. Several family members, who had stiffened up, exhaled a sigh of relief.

Parra's lawyer, Gal Pissetzky, who said little during the hearing, spoke then. None of the titles Miss Gregory read involved children, he said, a point he was to make again later.

Montalvo made a statement of support. I am familiar with those titles from other cases, he said.

Gregory read the second charge, which confirmed the speculation that Parra had made a deal in the public corruption case.

From Sept. 1, 2003 to July 6, 2007, Parra agreed to defraud the county and deprive the residents of the "honest services" of county officials, Gregory said. More specifically, Parra helped provide cash, trips and debt payments for members of commissioners court, she said. The receipt of bribes was to support a vote in favor of a specific vendor, which was not identified, Gregory said.

The offense carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, she said. In addition, Parra was obligated to pay $100 to a fund for crime victims, something everyone sentenced before Montalvo that day was told.

***

Montalvo took over the questions again.

I have before me a copy of the waiver of indictment. Do you understand, Montalvo asked Parra.

I sure do, your honor, Parra replied.

Montalvo then asked a series of rapid-fire questions:

-- Has anyone offered a promise or a deal that is not part of the plea agreement with the government on these two cases? No.

-- Have you had time to talk to your lawyer? Yes.

-- Are you satisfied with your representation? Yes.

-- Do you understand you have a right to a lawyer every step of the way? Yes.

-- Do you understand that by pleading guilty you are giving up your right to a trial by jury? Yes.

-- Do you understand you also are giving up the right to challenge evidence? Yes.

-- You are giving up your right to question government witnesses? Yes.

-- You are giving up your right to bring witnesses or evidence? Yes.

-- By pleading guilty, you are giving up your right to remain silent? Yes.

-- Do you understand that you are giving up your right to appeal, except on the grounds of illegal conduct by the government or poor representation? Yes.

Montavo then moved to an explanation of sentencing.

He said that the determination of sentencing was solely his. The factors included sentencing guidelines, the sentencing report, letters and background brought by Parra’s lawyer, Parra’s compliance with the plea agreement, the government’s recommendation, and Parra’s statements on his own behalf.

You do not have the right to withdraw your plea if you are dissatisfied with the sentence, Montalvo said. Do you understand? Yes, Parra answered.

***

With those procedures complete, the government lawyers and Parra’s attorney huddled with Montalvo briefly. Kanof then spoke.

She said that two cases from the Fifth Circuit prohibit publishing the “factual basis,” the document that sets forth specifics, if it names people who have not yet been indicted. Kanof made a motion to seal the agreement in both cases, as well as the two factual basis.

Gregory then spoke, stating that the government felt it could proceed on the obscenity charge alone, since there was only one image found that could have been a minor – a 14- or 15-year-old.

Although the proceeding appeared scripted throughout, with all the actors knowing their parts, Pissetzky still sounded slightly angry at the mention of child pornography.

I know the government is zealous in their prosecution, he said, but this is only an allegation. That is why Mr. Parra is not pleading to that count.

I am satisfied, Montalvo said.

Kanof then said that Parra was waiving the reading of the factual basis, to which Montalvo asked whether Parra had gone over the factual basis before he signed the plea agreement. Kanof said he had.

Finally, it was time for Parra to formally plead.

He pleaded guilty to both charges.

Montalvo told him that sentencing would be postponed until a mutually agreed upon time.

***

Pissetzky made an oral motion to release Parra into the custody of his wife, “to their mutual home.”

Montalvo made a brief speech.

Before Parra’s case, Montalvo had adjudicated several immigration cases. Several times, he made reference to wasted opportunity. He told Parra he was happy that Parra had seen those events, because “this is your opportunity to turn your life around. What happened to some of those individuals will happen to you if you don’t do what you’re supposed to.”

Montalvo called Adrienne Parra, Fernando Parra’s wife, whom FBI agents had said during a bond hearing several months ago was engaged in a “sham marriage,” and told her she was responsible for Fernado Parra.

“Miss Parra, don’t let it cross your mind to pull a fast one,” Montalvo said.

Montalvo set the bond at $45,000 guaranteed by the Parra’s home.

“I wish you well, Mr. Parra. Be mindful of the rules,” he said.

And that was it.

There was more procedure, a hearing with the magistrate judge to formally set the conditions for release.

About 10 family members clustered in the hall outside, and a handful of FBI agents stood to the side, with attorneys somewhere in the middle.

The reporters went outside to wait get video of Parra, and talk to his lawyer. It was a long wait. Finally, Pissetzky came outside.

“Fernando wants to assure the people of the county of El Paso that he wants to help regain the trust of the people of El Paso … toward their elected officials,” Pissetsky said.

He asked for the media not to speak to Parra’s family, or to Parra.

The media waited. Several family members went in and out of the courthouse, which was duly recorded.

In the end, only the El Paso Times, which had photographers staked out at both possible exits of the courthouse, got the shot. Parra went out the back way, and presumably home.