Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rules man can't appeal sentence enhancement after plea agreement

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 1, 2014

A panel of judges for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a man’s challenge of a lower court’s finding that he was a career offender.

Nathaniel Grundy appealed his sentence from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and argued that he was unfairly subjected to a career offender sentencing enhancement.

The government responded by pointing out that an appellate waiver in Grundy’s plea agreement precluded review of that issue on appeal.

“We agree with the government and therefore dismiss the appeal,” Circuit Judge Deborah Cook wrote for the court.

Case history stated that Grundy conspired with seven other people to distribute heroin in northeastern Ohio from October 2007 to November 2012.

He eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin.

During his plea proceedings, Grundy acknowledged he and the government had not reached an agreement about his sentence and he could be subject to up to 40 years in prison.

Nevertheless, he signed his plea agreement and the subsequent waivers.

The district court ultimately classified Grundy as a career offender due to his previous domestic violence convictions and sentenced him to 151 months in prison.

That term was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines range, which permitted a term of 151 to 188 months.

Nevertheless, Grundy appealed and argued that he should not have been classified as a career offender.

Upon review, the three-judge appellate panel first noted that a defendant may waive any right, including a constitutional right, as part of a plea agreement.

Therefore, as long as the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, the judges held that they must enforce all such waivers.

“Because Grundy does not contest the knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty plea, we look to the language of the appellate waiver,” Judge Cook stated.

The plain terms of Grundy’s waiver preserved his right to appeal only if his sentence exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment as established by the sentencing guidelines.

Grundy argued that his right to appeal was preserved because the trial court improperly applied a career offender enhancement.

The judges, however, determined that the agreement did not state a sentencing range, but left it up the court to determine.

“Though the plea agreement did not anticipate the district court’s use of a career offender offense level, Grundy’s 151-month sentence nonetheless falls within the sentencing range for the stipulated offense level of 28 and a criminal history category of VI,” Judge Cook wrote.

The judges ruled that because his sentence was well within the statutory range, Grundy was not permitted to appeal and dismissed his argument.

Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore and District Judge George Steeh, who sat by designation, concurred.

The case is cited USA v. Grundy, 13-4061.

[Back]