U.S. Supreme Court News | A "miscarriage of justice" exception now applies to appeal waivers.

Recently the Supreme Court addressed appeal waivers. Appeal waivers are problematic for federal prisoners because they often stand as a barrier to attacking improper sentencing guideline assessments. Appeal waivers are present in most federal plea agreements. [1] The validity of appeal waivers is usually upheld as long as the defendant intelligently and voluntarily waived the rights. [2]

Against this backdrop, Munson Hunter’s case reached the Supreme Court from the Southern District of Texas. [3] Hunter pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting wire fraud in exchange for the government refraining from prosecuting him on other charges and dismissing nine pending charges. His agreement included an appeal waiver which waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence except for ineffective assistance of counsel. He acknowledged his sentence had not yet been determined and the sentence would be left to the court’s discretion. Hunter was sentenced to 51-months prison followed by 3-years supervised release with a condition that he accept and take any medication provided by a required mental health treatment regimen.

Notwithstanding the waiver, Hunter appealed the mandatory medication condition. Hunter acknowledged his appeal waiver but argued that his waiver was unenforceable when the disputed aspect of the sentence violated a fundamental constitutional right. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed his appeal based on the waiver.

Hunter then sought certiorari in the Supreme Court and argued that a “miscarriage of justice” exception should apply to appeal waivers. The Supreme Court agreed. There had been a circuit split with the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits holding that no miscarriage of justice exception applied to appeal waivers and the others holding to the contrary.

In its analysis, the Court described the question as whether the right to enforce an appeal waiver has limits and, if so, what are the limits. The Court acknowledged that appeal waivers may be upheld if they are knowing and voluntary.

The Court noted that an

“appeal waiver, again like the rest of the agreement, is not knowing and voluntary if it was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

The Court rejected the government’s position that appeal waivers are enforceable in all situations except where the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.

Ultimately, the Court held

“that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice.”

The Court made clear that this miscarriage of justice rule sets a high bar.

“The waiver may be set aside only if the sentence is marred by the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The error must be obvious—not one a judge could reasonably make. And it must be of the type that would undermine public confidence in the judiciary.”

The Court gave a couple examples such as a sentence exceeding the maximum, a sentence based on race or including a constitutionally impermissible condition of supervised release such as a prevention on pregnancy, or a sentence imposed without some minimum of civilized procedure. The Court further made it clear that its examples did not set the boundaries of what rose to the level of a miscarriage of justice.

Overall, this is a small but noteworthy victory. The miscarriage of justice exception to appeal waivers is now the law of the land. However, demonstrating a miscarriage of justice for an appeal waiver remains the exception versus the rule.

If you or someone you love needs help navigating the complexities of appeals or postconviction relief, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

References:

1.    Quin M. Sorenson, Appeal Rights Waivers: A Constitutionally Dubious Bargain, The Federal Lawyer, October/November 2018, available at https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Sorenson-pdf-1.pdf.

2.    See, e.g., U.S. v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993). (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/997/1343/382239/)

3.    Hunter v. United States, Case No. 24-1063, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1063_5ifl.pdf.