Skip to content

Requirement of Consideration for Appeal Waivers

Plea deals may seem like the most opportune way for a criminal defendant to avoid having to serve the maximum sentence that he could receive for his offenses. However, the government typically has the upper hand in this situation and requires that the defendant relinquish his right to appeal the sentence. In United States v. Lutchman, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue of appeal waivers and whether they must be supported by consideration to be valid. In other words, did the defendant receive a sufficient benefit from the government in exchange for giving up his right to appeal the sentence?

What is an Appeal Waiver?

Appeal Waiver

Appeal Waiver

When a criminal defendant is offered a plea deal from the government, a typical condition of the plea deal is that the defendant must sign away his appeal rights. Although this is a major deal for defendants who face long prison terms for their offenses, the appeal waiver portion of a typical plea agreement is mostly treated as boilerplate by the government. Courts have very rarely examined the rights that the defendant must give up in an appeal waiver in exchange for a plea deal with the government.

The Appeal Waiver Issue in United States v. Lutchman

The case of United States v. Lutchman is unique in that the appellate court considered an appeal waiver issue and sided with the defendant. It can be challenging to raise an issue on appeal as a defendant if an appeal waiver was signed as a condition of a plea agreement that the defendant entered into.

The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to support a foreign terrorist organization. The plea deal required the defendant to give up his right to appeal any sentence less than or equal to the statutory maximum. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to the statutory maximum of 20 years in prison and 50 years of supervised release.

The defendant appealed his sentence. The Second Circuit noted that the defendant did not actually receive any reduction in prison time for signing the plea deal and waiving his appeal rights. Rather than ruling that the entire plea agreement was unenforceable, the appellate court severed the appeal waiver portion and considered the severity of the defendant's sentence on appeal. It was a major win for the defendant that the appeal was allowed to go forward in spite of the appeal waiver.

Ultimately, the Second Circuit ruled that the district court's sentence was not unreasonable in light of the defendant's conduct. The sentence was allowed to stand, but the Second Circuit took a significant step forward in protecting defendants' appeal rights in recognizing that the appeal waiver portion of the plea agreement could not hold up without the defendant receiving some sort of benefit at sentencing in exchange.

The Future of Appeal Waiver Issues

In light of the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Lutchman, many criminal defense advocates are applauding the courts’ efforts in scrutinizing plea deals. It stands to reason that a defendant should gain something of value in exchange for giving up his appeal rights in a case. If more courts remain willing to take a closer look at the terms of the plea deals that defendants enter into, more defendants may stand a chance at having significantly harsher sentences overturned.

In addition to signaling a potential shift in how federal courts treat plea waivers as part of criminal plea deals, the outcome of United States v. Lutchman should serve as a warning to defendants and practitioners to take plea waivers very seriously. Even if the government appears to gloss over them in a plea deal, a defendant should approach any forfeiture of his appeal rights as a serious matter. Defense attorneys should carefully and clearly advise clients of the rights that they are giving up by signing an appeal waiver.

Challenging an Appeal Waiver

If you think that there is no chance of appealing your criminal sentence because your plea deal included an appeal waiver, you might want to contact a trusted criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to see if there is a way that your appeal waiver may be unenforceable or inapplicable. It is best to move quickly in reaching out to an attorney so that you are not time-barred from filing an appeal for your criminal sentence. Contact criminal defense advocate Brandon Sample, Esq. to see which appeal options may still be available to you.

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

1 Comment

  1. Ayesha Smith on August 29, 2019 at 2:18 pm

    My son was sentenced to twelve years in prison for aggravated robbery. He was 17 years old at the time. There were 4 other males involved ages 16, 18,19 and 22. The 16 year old was give 6 months in juvenile detention and probation. He had a gun. The 19 yr old was given 15, he had a gun. The other 3 boys were given 12. Everyone had a long rap sheet of crimes. My son had one from when he was 13 or 14. I am finding the sentencing to be unfair. The boys were on camera but not my kid.
    I just want to know if there are any steps we can take to get his sentence reduced?

Leave a Comment

Recommended for you

Judge Interferes with Plea Negotiations

Federal criminal defendants are entitled to enter into plea agreement negotiations with prosecutors. It is a long-standing rule that federal district court judges are not to take any part in the plea negotiations between the defendant and the prosecution. In United States v. Iazzetta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a defendant’s restitution order because…

Oregon Drug Delivery Conviction Not A Federal “Controlled Substance Offense” For Career Offender Purposes

Oregon drug delivery conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes 475.992(1)(a) is not a “controlled substance offense” under federal law, according to the Ninth Circuit. Sandoval v. Yates, No. 13-71784 (9th Cir. 2017). This is an important case for criminal defendants because of its impact on individuals with career offender enhancements. The court held that Oregon drug delivery…

Reexamining Federal Supervised Release Conditions

What happens when a federal district court imposes a seemingly draconian or arbitrary condition on a defendant’s federal supervised release? Is this condition allowed to stand? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in United States v. Mears and provided a necessary refresher on the requirement that any federal supervised release conditions…

Scroll To Top