Original article written byDanielle Quinn and Harry Sandick
Edited and abbreviated by Johanna Zapp
by Harry Sandick and Danielle C. Quinn on December 13, 2018
In United States v. Lutchman, the Court concluded that the defendant’s appellate waiver in his plea agreement was not valid (in that, for what he was giving up by waiving his right to appeal, he was not given anything of value in return,) and thus did not block defendant’s challenge to his sentence on appeal.
In this case, the defendant promised not to appeal any sentence equal to or below the statutory maximum—the decision not to enforce a plea agreement’s appellate waiver on this basis is unusual. The appeals court analyzed the benefits provided in the plea agreement in exchange for the appeal waiver.
United States v. Lutchman
Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1). In the plea agreement, defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to the statutory maximum sentence, and waived his right to appeal any sentence less than or equal to the statutory maximum. The district court imposed the statutory maximum, a sentence of 240 months imprisonment and 50 years of supervised release.
The Court concluded that defendant received nothing in exchange for waiving his right to appeal. Although the government agreed to reduce defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range based on his acceptance of responsibility and his timely guilty plea, the Court concluded that these reductions were available to defendant regardless of whether he waived his right to appeal.
The Court, however, declined to remand or find that the plea agreement was unenforceable. Notably, defendant did not argue that the plea was unenforceable. Instead, the Court severed the appellate waiver from the plea agreement, and considered defendant’s sentencing challenge on the merits. Had the Court declared the entire agreement unenforceable, presumably the government would not have been bound by its terms.
As to defendant’s sentence, the Court concluded that defendant’s sentence was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the sentence reduction was inapplicable. The Court further concluded that defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, because the district court considered defendant’s history of mental health issues in reaching its sentencing determination. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.
Basically what the court did is refuse to enforce an appeal waiver because the defendant clearly received no benefit for agreeing to it. However, for other reasons independent of the waiver of appeal, they said that the sentence the defendant ultimately received was appropriate.
Commentary
This recent focus on appeal waivers in plea agreements teaches two lessons: (1) defendants should receive something of value for entering into a plea agreement in which they waive their right to appeal; and (2) defendants should be aware of what is at stake when they are waiving their right to appeal.
Defense lawyers also should be mindful of the fact that in some cases there is no reason to enter into a plea agreement, as they may force the defendant to give up appellate or sentencing rights in exchange for no actual benefit.