Opinion ID: 623036
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guilty Plea: Statute of Limitations

Text: In a supplemental pro se brief not endorsed by his appellate counsel, Hsu contests his conviction on Counts One and Six, the charges relating to the 2000 transaction, arguing that the statute of limitations had run on those counts and that he therefore could not plead guilty to them. [2] However, [i]t is well settled that a defendant's plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court's jurisdiction. Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted). It is also well established that the running of the limitations period does not defeat jurisdiction. United States v. Walsh, 700 F.2d 846, 855 (2d Cir. 1983). Thus, assuming arguendo that, at the time of the indictment, the limitations period had run on two of the counts, Hsu's plea of guilty waived the statute-of-limitations defense.