Opinion ID: 793816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sharp's appellate-waiver provision is enforceable

Text: 18 This court has held that a defendant in a criminal case may waive any right, even a constitutional right, by means of a plea agreement. United States v. McGilvery, 403 F.3d 361, 362 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider McGilvery's appeal because he had waived his appellate rights in the plea agreement) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the district court address the defendant personally in open court ... [and] inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands ... the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence. Pursuant to Rule 11, then, a waiver is effective only if understood by the defendant. United States v. Murdock, 398 F.3d 491, 495-97 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that the district court committed plain error where there was no mention of the appellate-waiver provision in open court until after sentencing). 19 Sharp complains that the district court did not comply with Rule 11 when it relied on the prosecutor to summarize the appellate-waiver provision and when it failed to specifically ascertain whether Sharp understood the provision in the plea agreement. Because Sharp did not object below, his appeal is subject to plain-error review. Id. at 496. This court has summarized the four distinct analyses of the plain-error inquiry under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as follows: 20 First, we are to consider whether an error occurred in the district court. Absent any error, our inquiry is at an end. However, if an error occurred, we then consider if the error was plain. If it is, then we proceed to inquire whether the plain error affects substantial rights. Finally, even if all three factors exist,... we must decide whether the plain error affecting substantial rights seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 21 United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 630 (6th Cir.1993) (interpreting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)); see also United States v. Jones, 108 F.3d 668, 670 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc) (describing Thomas's division of the plain-error inquiry as four distinct, though interrelated, analyses). We must decide at the outset, then, whether, as Sharp contends, the district court committed an error when it relied on the prosecutor to summarize the appellate-waiver provision and when it failed to specifically ask Sharp whether he understood the provision. 22 During the plea hearing, the district court asked Sharp if he understood the terms of the plea agreement generally, but the court did not ask a follow-up question specifically targeted at the appellate-waiver provision after the provision was summarized by the prosecutor. Sharp contends that the district court's omission, combined with Sharp's lack of education and lack of sophistication with the criminal justice system, renders the appellate-waiver provision unenforceable. 23 He relies on the following language from Murdock, 398 F.3d at 498, where this court held that the district court's failure to discuss the appellate-waiver provision was plain error, to argue that Sharp's waiver provision is also unenforceable: 24 In the absence of a discussion of the appellate waiver provision in open court, we will not rely on a defendant's self-assessment of his understanding of a plea agreement in determining the knowingness of that plea, even where, as the government emphasizes is the case here, the defendant is sophisticated or has significant experience with the criminal justice system. 25 Murdock, however, is easily distinguishable because there was no mention of the appellate-waiver provision in open court. Id. at 497. Here, the waiver provision was fully explained during the plea hearing by the prosecutor. 26 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the court to inform the defendant of the waiver, but this court in United States v. Wilson, 438 F.3d 672, 674 (6th Cir.2006), has recently reaffirmed that an explanation of the appellate-waiver provision by the prosecutor is sufficient to satisfy Rule 11 so long as the court ascertains that the defendant understands the provision. In Wilson, the district court asked the prosecutor to explain the terms of the plea agreement to the defendant. Id. The prosecutor proceeded to explain the terms, including the appellate-waiver provision, and the district court did not supplement the prosecutor's explanation of the appellate-waiver provision with any further detail. Id. 27 Despite the district court's reliance on the prosecutor to explain the various provisions of the plea agreement, the Wilson court considered the appellate-waiver provision enforceable, holding that because the terms of the plea agreement were fully explained to defendant in open court, Rule 11(b)(1)(N) was not violated. Id.; see also McGilvery, 403 F.3d at 362 (holding that McGilvery's waiver was valid when the prosecutor summarized the terms of the plea agreement and specifically explained that McGilvery agreed to waive his right to appellate review). 28 In holding the waiver enforceable, the Wilson court relied on Murdock, a case cited by Sharp as similar to this one. This court in Murdock, although finding plain error where there was no mention of the appellate-waiver provision in open court, nevertheless indicated that, in the absence of such an inquiry by the district court, a prosecutor's summary of the key elements of the plea agreement can be sufficient to prove that the defendant's waiver was knowing and voluntary. 398 F.3d at 498; see also Wilson, 438 F.3d at 674 (Indeed, Murdock itself indicated a prosecutor in summarizing the key elements of the agreement might adequately address the waiver.) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The fact, therefore, that the prosecutor, rather than the district court, summarized the appellate-waiver provision does not constitute error. 29 Similarly, the district court's failure to inquire specifically as to whether Sharp understood the appellate-waiver provision was not erroneous. In Wilson, rather than asking the defendant a direct question regarding the appellate-waiver provision, the district court simply asked whether the defendant still desired to plead guilty after being advised of all of his rights. Id. The district court's failure to ask a specific question regarding the appellate-waiver provision did not render the provision invalid, the Wilson court reasoned, because other evidence in the record indicated that Wilson's plea was knowing and voluntary, and because the appellate-waiver provision was adequately explained to him in open court. Id. 30 Although the district court's inquiry in Wilson occurred after the prosecutor explained the appellate-waiver provision, rather than before the explanation as was the case here, this difference is not dispositive. Rule 11 requires that the district court ascertain that the defendant understands the terms of the plea agreement, but it does not require that the district court ask a particular question about the appellate-waiver provision. We recognize that the failure to ask a specific question about the waiver could be error if the record is not clear that the defendant understood the provision as required by Rule 11. Here, however, we find the record is sufficient to indicate that Sharp understood the terms of the plea agreement. Not only did Sharp sign the agreement, but he also testified in open court that he understood its terms and had ample opportunity to discuss it with his attorney. 31 Our other cases also instruct us that Sharp's waiver of his appellate rights was valid. In Murdock, for example, this court opined that even in the absence of a specific inquiry about the appellate-waiver provision, other evidence of voluntariness can suffice to demonstrate that the defendant's waiver of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary. 398 F.3d at 497-98. The McGilvery court went even further, holding an appellate-waiver provision enforceable where there [was] nothing in the record to suggest that ... the defendant misunderstood the scope of his waiver of appellate rights—essentially requiring the defendant to affirmatively establish his misunderstanding. 403 F.3d at 363 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (ellipses in original). 32 In the present case, Sharp has made no such showing. Sharp testified in open court that he had read the plea agreement, that he understood its terms, and that he had discussed the agreement with his attorney. He does not dispute this testimony. Instead, Sharp asks us to split hairs and hold that his statement regarding his general understanding of the plea agreement may not be used to demonstrate that he understood its individual provisions. This we refuse to do. 33 Our cases make clear that the proper inquiry under Rule 11 is whether the defendant was informed of and understood the terms of the plea agreement. See Wilson, 438 F.3d at 674; Murdock, 398 F.3d at 497-98. Sharp read the plea agreement, discussed it with his attorney, and does not claim that his attorney's explanation of the appellate-waiver provision was inadequate. The district court satisfied Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by ensuring that the appellate-waiver provision was discussed in open court and that Sharp understood his plea agreement. We therefore hold that there was no error. 34 Because Sharp has not demonstrated that the district court committed an error, we have no need to determine whether the alleged error was plain, whether it affected substantial rights, or whether it undermined the integrity of the proceedings. Despite our holding today, however, we nevertheless acknowledge that the district courts could avoid challenges such as the one before us by specifically asking defendants whether they understand the appellate rights that are being waived. Such an inquiry would be well-placed after either the district court or the prosecutor has fully explained the provisions of the plea agreement. We conclude, however, that the district court's failure to do so in this case was not error because other evidence in the record indicates that Sharp was informed of and understood his rights. See Murdock, 398 F.3d at 497-98. 35