Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The matter is before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver in Aaron Spellman’s plea agreement under the 10th Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hahn. Exercising jurisdiction the 10th Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.
Spellman pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S. Code 922(g)(1). As part of the plea agreement, Spellman waived his right to appeal “any matter in connection with his prosecution, conviction or sentence,” so long as the sentence didn’t exceed the statutory maximum or the applicable advisory guideline range, or the government didn’t appeal from the sentence imposed.
By signing the plea agreement, Spellman agreed he “knowingly and voluntarily” waived his right to appeal. At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court confirmed he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, was competent to understand the proceeding and wasn’t forced to plead guilty. On this basis, the district court found Spellman’s guilty plea was entered “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”
The district court sentenced Spellman to 40 months in prison, which was below both the statutory maximum and the applicable guideline range. The government didn’t file an appeal.
Despite his waiver, Spellman filed this appeal. His docketing statement indicated he sought to challenge the constitutionality of 922(g)(1), as well as unspecified aspects of his sentence.
In ruling on a motion to enforce, the 10th Circuit considered: “whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice,” according to Hahn. Spellman argued all three factors weigh against enforcing the waiver because he discovered after entering the plea agreement that a defendant in another case intended to challenge the constitutionality of 922(g)(1) — the statute to which Spellman pled guilty in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Spellman first argued a constitutional challenge to 922(g)(1) was outside the scope of his waiver. The 10th Circuit disagreed. His waiver was broad, the opinion noted, barring the right to appeal “any matter in connection with his prosecution, conviction or sentence.” Neither the Supreme Court nor the 10th Circuit declared 922(g)(1) unconstitutional. Thus Spellman pleaded guilty to violating a valid statute. His constitutional claim therefore fell squarely within the scope of the waiver, the 10th Circuit explained.
The 10th Circuit rejected Spellman’s argument his waiver wasn’t knowing and voluntary. It considers two factors in determining whether an appeal waiver is enforceable under this prong of the Hahn analysis: whether the plea agreement states it was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and the adequacy of the plea colloquy conducted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, according to Hahn. According to the opinion, Spellman didn’t address either of these factors and he didn’t contend he didn’t understand the appeal waiver or any other aspect of his agreement. Instead, he contended his plea wasn’t knowing and voluntary because he didn’t learn about the other defendant’s challenge to 922(g)(1) until after he pleaded guilty, so he entered the plea “without understanding that [his statute of conviction] was unconstitutional,” according to a court document.
The 10th Circuit explained that the statute wasn’t declared unconstitutional. And Bruen, which underpins Spellman’s constitutional challenge, was decided more than six months before he entered his plea. In any event, “criminal defendants may waive both rights in existence and those that result from unanticipated later judicial determinations,” the opinion noted, citing the 10th Circuit decision United States v. Porter. The fact Spellman didn’t know when he entered his plea what specific claims of error he was foregoing didn’t render his guilty plea unknowing or involuntary, the opinion noted citing Hahn.
Spellman’s final argument was enforcing the waiver would be a miscarriage of justice because his appeal involved the constitutionality of the underlying statute. A miscarriage of justice occurs where “the district court relied on an impermissible factor such as race”; “ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver renders the waiver invalid”; “the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum”; or “the waiver is otherwise unlawful,” according to Hahn. “The burden rests with the defendant to demonstrate the appeal waiver results in a miscarriage of justice,” the opinion noted, citing the 10th Circuit decision United States v. Anderson. Spellman appeared to argue his waiver was “otherwise unlawful” in light of Bruen.
To show his appeal waiver was “otherwise unlawful,” Spellman needed to prove enforcing it would seriously undermine “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” according to Hahn. He argued enforcing the waiver would be a miscarriage of justice because his appeal involved the constitutionality of the underlying statute. But the proper inquiry is “whether the waiver itself is unlawful because of some procedural error or because no waiver is possible,” the opinion noted, citing the 10th Circuit decision United States v. Sandoval. The mere assertion of constitutional error is insufficient to establish the waiver itself was unlawful, according to the 10th Circuit decision United States v. Holzer. The 10th Circuit rejected his contention that enforcing the waiver would constitute a miscarriage of justice.
The 10th Circuit granted the government’s motion to enforce the waiver in Spellman’s plea agreement and dismissed this appeal.