Opinion ID: 2003859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of the Right to Appeal

Text: This Court must first decide whether this appeal can properly be considered, given Appellant's waiver. A waiver of the right to appeal in a guilty plea does not extinguish all appealable issues. Id. at 307 (citing Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000)). Rather, some issues survive an express waiver of the right to appeal. Id. These issues include competency to plead guilty; whether the plea complied with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); subject matter jurisdiction and failure to charge a public offense; and sentencing issues. Id. (some citations omitted). Appellant asserts that his appeal is preserved, despite his waiver, because it is a sentencing issue under Windsor . However, the error he alleges is not the sort of sentencing issue to which that case refers. In Windsor , this Court cited two cases for the proposition that sentencing issues were preserved for appeal notwithstanding a valid waiver. The first case was Ware v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Ky. App.2000), where the appellant argued that the trial court erred in concluding that a statute barred her from receiving probation. The Court of Appeals held that, because appeals are preserved if an appellant asserts that the trial court acted without authority in rendering a sentence, it could reach the issue of whether the trial court's ruling that probation was unavailable was without statutory authority, despite the appellant's waiver. Id. (citing Gaither v. Commonwealth, 963 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Ky.1998)). The second case Windsor cited was Hughes v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 99, 100 (Ky.1994). In Hughes , the appellant argued that the trial court erred in concluding that a statute barred its consideration of his request for probation with an alternative sentencing plan. This Court held that it could reach the sentencing issue, despite the appellant's waiver, because all defendants have the right to be sentenced after due consideration of all applicable law. Id. (citing Wellman v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Ky. 1985)). The cases cited in Windsor make clear that the phrase sentencing issues does not refer to any issue that arguably affected the ultimate sentence imposed. Instead, it refers to a claim that a sentencing decision is contrary to statute, as in Ware , or was made without fully considering what sentencing options were allowed by statute, as in Hughes . Such sentencing issues are jurisdictional, Cummings v. Commonwealth, 226 S.W.3d 62, 66 (Ky. 2007), and thus they may be raised on appeal even from an unconditional guilty plea. This is not to say, of course, that such claims will succeed on their merits; but they may at least be raised before an appellate court and considered on their merits, notwithstanding a waiver of the right to appeal. In light of these cases, Appellant's argument that he is appealing a sentencing issue under Windsor is mistaken. Appellant is not arguing that his sentence was contrary to, or exceeded that allowed by, statute. In fact, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life without the possibility of parole for twenty years for various crimes, including murder, for which Appellant could have received life without any possibility of parole, KRS 532.030(1), a harsher sentence. Nor is Appellant arguing that the trial court failed to fully consider the possible sentences it could have imposed on him. Consequently, the issue Appellant raises does not constitute a sentencing issue that survives his waiver. Instead, the substance of Appellant's argument is that his plea did not comply with Boykin , which, like sentencing issues, would survive his waiver. Wellman, 694 S.W.2d at 698. He assigns as error the trial court's failure to inform him of his right to enter a blind plea and demand jury sentencing. Although Appellant characterizes this as a sentencing issue, the core of his claim is that without knowledge of this right, his plea could not have been made knowingly and voluntarily, which is what Boykin requires. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 1709; see also Johnson v. Commonwealth, 103 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Ky.2003). Given that Boykin challenges survive a waiver of the right to appeal, this Court can reach the merits of this challenge, now that it is properly framed. Wellman, 694 S.W.2d at 698.