Summary
The Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant’s agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice, defined as leaving in place an egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The Court further held that the district court’s erroneous statement regarding appeal rights and the Government’s silence did not modify or waive the appeal waiver. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was vacated and the case was remanded for that court to determine whether enforcement of the waiver would produce a miscarriage of justice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court's statement at sentencing that Hunter had a right to appeal, combined with the Government's failure to object, modified or forfeited enforcement of the plea-agreement appeal waiver.
- Whether a knowing and voluntary agreement waiving an appeal from a sentence is enforceable without exception, or whether it is unenforceable when enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether Hunter's challenge to the mandatory-medication condition itself satisfied the miscarriage-of-justice standard.
Holdings
- The District Court's misstatement that Hunter had a right to appeal did not modify the plea agreement, and the Government's failure to object did not waive or forfeit its right to enforce the appeal waiver.
- An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice, meaning that enforcement would leave in place an obvious and egregious sentencing error of a kind that would bring the judicial system into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
- The Supreme Court would not decide in the first instance whether enforcement of Hunter's appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice; that determination must initially be made by the Fifth Circuit.
Key quotations
“an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice—meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.” (1)
“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.” (11)
“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.” (11)
“We are, as we usually say, "a court of review, not of first view."” (14)
Factual background
Hunter was charged with ten counts of bank and wire fraud arising from a years-long scheme involving approximately half a million dollars. He pleaded guilty to one count under a written agreement requiring dismissal of the remaining charges and containing a knowing and voluntary waiver of appeals from his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective-assistance claims. The District Court imposed 51 months in prison and three years of supervised release, including a condition requiring Hunter to take mental-health medication prescribed by his physician, despite Hunter's objection. At the close of sentencing, the court incorrectly told Hunter that he had a right to appeal, and the prosecutor did not correct the statement.
Procedural history
Hunter pleaded guilty under a written agreement that waived appeals of his conviction and sentence, subject to limited exceptions. After the District Court imposed a 51-month prison sentence and a supervised-release condition requiring him to take prescribed mental-health medication, Hunter appealed. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the waiver remained valid and that its only relevant exceptions were ineffective assistance and a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for the Fifth Circuit to apply the miscarriage-of-justice standard.
Remand instructions
The Fifth Circuit must determine whether enforcing Hunter's appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice under the standard adopted by the Supreme Court, and then proceed consistently with the opinion.