Opinion ID: 165799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of the plea agreement

Text: 26 The next issue is whether Porter's plea agreement precludes him from appealing his sentence. We find that it does. 27 We apply well-established contract principles and our three-part test recently developed in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc), to interpret appeal waivers. Under Hahn, we consider (1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Id. at 1325 (citation omitted). We strictly construe the scope of appellate waivers and any ambiguities in these agreements are read against the Government and in favor of a defendant's appellate rights. Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).
28 As a preliminary matter, it is helpful to clarify Porter's argument on appeal regarding the scope of the appeal waiver. He initially argued his sentence should be reversed in light of Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because the sentence was based on a quantity of drugs neither admitted by him nor determined by a jury. Under this theory, Porter interpreted the exception to his appellate waiver allowing him to appeal a sentence above the maximum statutory penalty provided in the statute of conviction, as referring to the maximum penalty the court could have imposed under the applicable Federal Sentencing Guideline (Guidelines) sentencing range based on facts he admitted. Porter claimed his sentence exceeded this maximum because the court determined the sentence based on facts he did not admit. In subsequent briefing, however, Porter concedes that he did in fact stipulate to the quantity of drugs for which the court sentenced him. See Aplt. Supp. Reply Br. at 3 (As the [plea agreement] reflects, Mr. Porter did in fact admit possession with intent to distribute the 30.2 grams of methamphetamine (pure).). 2 29 With these considerations in mind, we reject Porter's argument that his sentence is outside the scope of the appellate waiver for two basic reasons. First, setting aside Porter's concession regarding drug quantity, his interpretation of the waiver clause contradicts the plain language of the plea agreement. The agreement contains a waiver exception where the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum provided in the statute of conviction. Adopting Porter's approach would require us to read the term statute of conviction out of the agreement and substitute it with applicable Guideline range or some such language. 30 We decline to do so. Nothing in the record before us shows that the parties intended the exception to stand for anything other than the plain meaning of its operative language. See United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1333-35 (11th Cir.2005) (holding that exception to appellate waiver for sentence exceeding the maximum permitted by statute referred to statute of conviction, not statutory maximum as defined in Blakely and Booker, where no indication parties intended otherwise); United States v. West, 392 F.3d 450, 460-61 (D.C.Cir.2004) (holding that exception to appellate waiver for sentence exceeding statutory maximum did not allow for Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) or Blakely challenge where parties did not intend the term to have such meaning). Here, the relevant statute of conviction was 21 U.S.C. § 841, which in this case carried a maximum penalty of 40 years. Porter's 110-month sentence does not exceed the maximum penalty. 31 Second, even if we were to adopt Porter's interpretation of the waiver clause, his sentence would not exceed the statutory maximum. The Sixth Amendment rule announced in Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, and extended to the Guidelines in Booker is inapplicable where a sentence is determined based on admitted facts. See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756 (Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.). Again, as we have noted, Porter admitted the facts on which the district court determined his sentence. Hence, Porter's sentence is within the scope of the agreement and does not violate the 6th Amendment.
32 Porter does not contest the district court's determination that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. Therefore we need not address the issue. See United States v. Anderson, 374 F.3d 955, 958-59 (10th Cir.2004) (concluding plea agreement entered into knowingly and voluntarily because defendant did not argue otherwise on appeal).
33 To prove that enforcement of an appellate waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, a defendant must establish at least one of four circumstances: (1) reliance by the court upon an impermissible factor such as race in imposition of the sentence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is otherwise unlawful and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327; Anderson, 374 F.3d at 959 (defendant bears burden of establishing miscarriage of justice). 34 Porter makes three claims under the Hahn miscarriage of justice inquiry. First, his attorney was ineffective in negotiating the plea agreement. Second, the sentence imposed exceeds the statutory maximum. Third, he is entitled to resentencing because the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory in imposing sentence.
35 Porter claims his counsel was ineffective in negotiating the waiver. We decline to reach the merits of this claim. First, Porter did not assert this argument, nor a more general ineffective assistance of counsel claim, in either of his opening briefs, and dedicates only three sentences to the claim in his initial reply brief. Nor did he pursue the argument in post- Booker briefing. Therefore we deem it waived. See Coleman v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., Inc., 108 F.3d 1199, 1205 (10th Cir.1997) (It is not sufficient to merely mention an issue in a reply brief. Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.). 36 Second, a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a collateral proceeding, not on direct review. See United States v. Edgar, 348 F.3d 867, 869 (10th Cir.2003). This rule applies even where a defendant seeks to invalidate an appellate waiver based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 n. 13 (noting case did not disturb longstanding rule that ineffective assistance claims must generally be brought in collateral proceedings). Here, Porter offers no argument supporting a reason to depart from our general practice and we decline to do so, especially in light of his failure to meaningfully argue the claim.
37 Porter next alleges enforcement of the agreement would produce a miscarriage of justice because his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. This claim, similar to his argument regarding the scope of the appellate waiver, is that the term statutory maximum under the Hahn miscarriage of justice inquiry, see 359 F.3d at 1327, should be read to refer to the statutory maximum as defined in Blakely and extended to the federal Guidelines in Booker. Because statutory maximum under the Hahn miscarriage inquiry refers to the statute of conviction, this claim has no merit. Porter's sentence does not exceed the 40-year maximum in the statute of conviction.
38 Porter's last contention is that his waiver is otherwise unlawful and should not be enforced because the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory. This legal error violates Booker's remedial holding, which severed the mandatory aspects of the Guidelines and made them advisory. See 125 S.Ct. at 756-57. The relevant question, however, is not whether Porter's sentence is unlawful in light of Booker's remedial holding, but whether subsequent changes in the law render his appeal waiver itself unenforceable. 39 Supreme Court precedent is quite explicit that as part of a plea agreement, criminal defendants may waive both rights in existence and those that result from unanticipated later judicial determinations. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 757, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). Brady pled guilty to a life sentence in order to avoid a possible death sentence. See id. at 746, 90 S.Ct. 1463. Thereafter, the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty provision in the statute on which Brady's conviction was based. See United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968). Brady argued his guilty plea was involuntary because he based it on the belief he was eligible to receive the death penalty under the statute of conviction. See Brady, 397 U.S. at 746, 90 S.Ct. 1463. The Supreme Court rejected this argument: [A] voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise. Id. at 757, 90 S.Ct. 1463. 40 The Supreme Court reiterated the approach followed in Brady in United States v. Ruiz, stating: [T]his Court has found that the Constitution, in respect to a defendant's awareness of relevant circumstances, does not require complete knowledge of the relevant circumstances, but permits a court to accept a guilty plea, with its accompanying waiver of various constitutional rights, despite various forms of misapprehension [including where a] defendant failed to anticipate a change in the law regarding relevant punishments. 41 536 U.S. 622, 630, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 42 We have previously rejected a challenge to the validity of a plea agreement based on a subsequent judicial determination regarding the scope of the Guidelines. See United States v. Morrison, 938 F.2d 168, 171 n. 4 (10th Cir.1991). Moreover, some of our fellow circuits have already rejected claims that the change in sentencing law resulting from Booker invalidated otherwise lawful plea agreements. See United States v. Sahlin, 399 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir.2005) (dismissing as frivolous a claim that Booker rendered otherwise valid guilty plea involuntary and stating the possibility of a favorable change in the law occurring after a plea is one of the normal risks that accompany a guilty plea); United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459, 463-66 (6th Cir.2005) (applying Brady to reject a claim seeking to invalidate plea agreement in light of Booker ). Similarly, we find the change Booker rendered in the sentencing landscape does not compel us to hold Porter's plea agreement unlawful. 43 This outcome is obvious. To hold otherwise would suggest that most appeal waivers in cases pending on direct appeal at the time the Supreme Court decided Booker are unlawful. The essence of plea agreements, however, is that they represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters. One such risk is a favorable change in the law. To allow defendants or the government to routinely invalidate plea agreements based on subsequent changes in the law would decrease the prospects of reaching an agreement in the first place, an undesirable outcome given the importance of plea bargaining to the criminal justice system. 3 See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1318. 44 As a closing point, in our view enforcement of Porter's plea agreement does not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of these judicial proceedings. The plea agreement made clear that Porter faced a 40-year maximum sentence for the charged crimes, that he gave up multiple constitutional and appellate rights in exchange for concessions from the government and, though not explicit in the agreement, that he would be sentenced in accordance with the Guidelines then in effect. The sentence imposed by the district court is in conformance with the terms of the agreement and the understanding expressed by Porter at the plea hearing. Porter faced up to 137 months under the applicable Guidelines and received a sentence of 110 months. Accordingly, we find Porter's argument without merit.