United States v. Combs
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18813
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Combs pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, receiving a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range (33 months).
- Combs challenged the district court’s refusal to consider an untimely suppression motion; he had not preserved issues for review because he pled unconditionally.
- The suppression motion argued lack of probable cause in the warrant affidavit and alleged video surveillance discrepancies; the district court denied relief due to untimeliness and lack of good cause.
- Pretrial motions deadline passed; defense counsel delayed filing after new counsel reviewed the sealed warrant application and video evidence; the court warned about the deadline and potential need to continue.
- Combs entered an unconditional guilty plea, without reserving rights to appeal pretrial rulings; the appeal proceeds despite later contesting pretrial matters.
- Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the unconditional guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unconditional guilty plea bars appellate review of pretrial suppression issues. | Combs argues the government’s conduct and delay justified reviewing the suppression motion. | Combs contends the untimely motion should be considered notwithstanding the unconditional plea. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to unconditional guilty plea. |
| Whether Rule 11(a)(2) preservation requirements affect appellate jurisdiction when the plea is unconditional. | Government position would treat Rule 11(a)(2) as a waiver of pretrial issues. | Rule 11(a)(2) requires explicit government and district court consent for conditional pleas; absence of such consent should not destroy jurisdiction. | Court declines to adopt a jurisdictional distinction based on Rule 11(a)(2); nonetheless, jurisdiction remains lacking due to unconditional plea. |
| Whether the government’s handling of the suppression issue cures or waives the untimely filing. | Government did not forfeit the issue by oversight. | No explicit conditional plea; and untimeliness was not waived. | Not cured; jurisdictional bar remains because of unconditional plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea bars pre-plea claims unless the plea preserves them)
- United States v. Kingcade, 562 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2009) (unconditional plea can foreclose review of pre-plea issues)
- United States v. Elizalde-Adame, 262 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2001) (pre-plea issues not preserved lack jurisdictional review)
- United States v. Cain, 155 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 1998) (review of pre-plea issues limited when plea is unconditional)
- United States v. Rogers, 387 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2004) (consent requirement for conditional pleas; jurisdictional concerns)
- United States v. Mancillas, 183 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 1999) (Rule 12(b)(3) deadlines and waiver principles)
- United States v. Figueroa, 622 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2010) (good cause for late suppression motions; Rule 12(e))
- United States v. Acox, 595 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010) (waiver and preservation of pretrial issues; Rule 12)
- United States v. Johnson, 415 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2005) (waiver of Rule 12(b)(3) issues absent good cause)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (distinction between jurisdictional rules and claim-processing rules)