The criminal case on appeal touches on two issues, each of which has split federal circuit courts. The first is whether defendants' claims of ineffective assistance or excessive sentence are the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver. The second is whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge says the defendant has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
"This petition presents an ideal vehicle for resolving two entrenched, well-recognized circuit splits affecting thousands of defendants across the country," criminal defendant Munson Hunter III said in his petition for certiorari. "The circuits are deeply divided over when defendants may challenge their sentences on appeal notwithstanding general appeal waivers."
Hunter had signed a plea agreement with an appeal waiver and pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud in the Southern District of Texas. The district judge's sentence included a provision forcing Hunter to take mental-health medication, which Hunter had objected to, the petition says.
The judge told Hunter he had a right to appeal, and the government did not object, the petition adds. However, when Hunter appealed to the Fifth Circuit claiming the sentence violated his constitutional right to due process, the appellate court rejected his appeal because of the waiver he had signed.
The Fifth Circuit held that the only exceptions to general appeal waivers are cases in which the defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh circuits have made similar holdings, while the First, Second, Fourth and Ninth circuits have declined to enforce appeal waivers in cases where defendants challenged the constitutionality of their sentences, the petition says.
"Whether a defendant can exercise his right to appeal should not depend on where a defendant is sentenced," Hunter wrote. "Only this court can resolve these ubiquitously recurring splits and establish uniformity nationwide."
In a brief submitted to the high court, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the Fifth Circuit rightfully enforced the appeal waiver. The government argued that Hunter "had the power to bargain away his appellate rights as part of obtaining a deal from the government," adding that the right to appeal is only statutory — not constitutional.
It said the case "illustrates the mutual benefits of appeal waivers": Hunter had agreed to plead guilty and waive his right to appeal, and the government agreed to dismiss nine other counts.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
Hunter is represented by Lisa Blatt, Charles McCloud, James Sasso and Dana Kinel and Garrett Wen of Williams & Connolly LLP and Brent Newton.
The government is represented by John Sauer, Matthew Galeotti and Katherine Allen of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The case is Munson Hunter III v. U.S., case number 24-1063, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Editing by Dave Trumbore.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
