Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

11 other Federal Courts of Appeals with criminal jurisdic-
tion);  State  v.  Patton,  287  Kan.  200,  228–229,  195  P. 3d 
753,  771  (2008).    That  an  appeal  waiver  does  not  bar 
claims  outside  its  scope  follows  from  the  fact  that, 
“[a]lthough the analogy may not hold in all respects, plea 
bargains  are  essentially  contracts.”    Puckett  v.  United 
States, 556 U. S. 129, 137 (2009). 

As  with  any  type  of  contract,  the  language  of  appeal 
waivers can vary widely, with some waiver clauses leaving 
many  types  of  claims  unwaived.5   Additionally,  even  a
waived appellate claim can still go forward if the prosecu-
tion  forfeits  or  waives  the  waiver.    E.g.,  United  States  v. 
Story,  439  F. 3d  226,  231  (CA5  2006).    Accordingly,  a  de-
fendant  who  has  signed  an  appeal  waiver  does  not,  in 
directing  counsel  to  file  a  notice  of  appeal,  necessarily
undertake a quixotic or frivolous quest. 

Separately, all jurisdictions appear to treat at least some 
claims  as  unwaiveable.    Most  fundamentally,  courts  agree
that defendants retain the right to challenge whether the 
waiver itself is valid and enforceable—for example, on the
grounds  that  it  was  unknowing  or  involuntary.6    Conse-

—————— 

5 See generally Brief for Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Law-
yers et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting examples of appeal waivers 
that  allowed  challenges  to  the  defendant’s  sentence  or  conviction  or 
allowed claims based on prosecutorial misconduct or changes in law). 

6 See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Brown,  892  F. 3d  385,  394  (CADC  2018) 
(“Like  all  other  courts  of  appeals,  our  circuit  holds  that  a  defendant 
‘may  waive  his  right  to  appeal  his  sentence  as  long  as  his  decision  is 
knowing,  intelligent,  and  voluntary’ ”);  Spann  v.  State,  704  N. W.  2d 
486, 491 (Minn. 2005) (“Jurisdictions allowing a defendant to waive his 
or  her  right  to  appeal  a  conviction  require  that  the  waiver  be  made 
‘intelligently,  voluntarily,  and  with  an  understanding  of  the  conse-
quences’ ”).  Lower courts have also applied exceptions for other kinds of
claims,  including  “claims  that  a  sentence  is  based  on  race  discrimina-
tion,  exceeds  the  statutory  maximum  authorized,  or  is  the  product  of
ineffective assistance of counsel.”  King & O’Neill, Appeal Waivers and
the Future of Sentencing Policy, 55 Duke L. J. 209, 224 (2005) (collect-
ing federal cases); see also, e.g., United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794