SCOTUS considers whether plea deals block all appeals in Oklahoma

WASHINGTON — The ability to appeal or not to appeal was the question before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, as justices considered how broadly appeal waivers in plea agreements should be enforced in the case of Texas defendant Munson Hunter. 

Hunter pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud as part of a negotiated agreement with the government. He had faced nine additional charges tied to a 1-year wire fraud scheme. In exchange for pleading guilty to the single count, Hunter agreed to waive his right to appeal “on any grounds or by any means.”

Appeal waivers are provisions in plea agreements in which defendants give up their rights to challenge the sentence on direct appeal or through a habeas petition. The two commonly recognized exceptions are claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and claims that a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 

Federal courts divided on enforcing appeal waivers

But federal appeals courts are divided on how strictly to enforce those waivers. 

The 5th, 6th, 10th and 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals take a narrow view, generally holding that defendants who sign plea agreements waive nearly all rights to appeal, including procedural errors or claims of constitutional violations such as racial or sex bias. 

In contrast, the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th Circuits allow defendants to raise a broader range of constitutional challenges despite appeal waivers. In those jurisdictions, courts are more willing to consider whether enforcing a waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as wrongful convictions, prosecutorial misconduct or racial bias. 

Oklahoma cases highlight strict enforcement of appeal waivers

Oklahoma falls under the 10th Circuit, which has strictly enforced appeal waivers. This year, two Oklahoma cases- United States v. Hanks and  United States v. Kimble– were dismissed under appeal waivers. Last year, four cases- United States v. Vessel, United States v. Manson, United States v. House and United States v. Medina– were dismissed on the same grounds. 

Munson Hunter challenges supervised release medication requirement

Hunter was sentenced to 51 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release. As a condition of that release, he was required to participate in a mental health treatment program and “take all mental health medications that are prescribed by your treating physician.”

Hunter objected to the medication requirement. 

“I want to take mental health programs, but I don’t want to take any medication,” Hunter said. “I don’t drink. I don’t use drugs. I don’t even curse. I don’t want to be forced to medicate.”

Hunter appealed not only the supervised release condition but also argued that the district court informed him at sentencing that he had the right to appeal if he wished. 

His attorney argued that courts should adopt clearer standards governing appeal waivers. They argued that enforcing the waiver in this case would result in a miscarriage of justice and that plea agreements are subject to traditional contract defenses.

Attorney Lisa Blatt, representing Hunter, proposed a new framework for analyzing miscarriage-of-justice claims. 

“First, the error has to be obvious, clear and indisputable, like no argument on the other side,” Blatt said.

“The second gateway is exactly what you said. It’s got to be really bad,” Blatt added. “What ‘really bad’ means is it’s just so plainly unauthorized by statute or a violation of a constitutional right, which covers race, First Amendment, religion and bodily integrity.”

Blatt said Hunter was not challenging the existence of appeal waivers themselves, but rather the scope of what they bar, particularly in cases involving sentencing error or alleged miscarriages of justice.

Justices question limits of appeal waivers during arguments

Justice Department attorney Zoe Jacoby argued that opening the door to challenges to “egregious” sentences would lead to continued litigation and undermine the finality the government seeks in plea agreements. 

Allowing such appeals, Jacoby said, would deprive the government of the benefit of its bargain, because prosecutors enter plea agreements expecting cases to be final. 

Jacoby said appeal waivers are enforceable in nearly all circumstances, even when Justice Neil Gorsuch posed hypotheticals involving “a racist sentencing judge,” “a sexist sentencing judge” or “someone who is biased against religious minorities.”

“Yes. The appeal waiver is enforceable,” Jacoby said. “The point is that at the time that we’re deciding whether to enforce the appeal waiver, all we have is a claim that there has been this particular type of error, and what the defendant has given up is the right to claim.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, suggesting the government’s position relies heavily on district court judges to follow constitutional and statutory obligations. 

“I would think it’s unenforceable to enter a contract that says you are going to be sentenced by a judge who does not have to follow the law,” Sotomayor said. 

The ruling could determine whether defendants across the country, including Oklahoma, can challenge their sentences despite signing appeal waivers, or whether such waivers will continue to result in immediate dismissal in most cases.