United States v. Garrett Smith
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13773
7th Cir.2014Background
- Garrett Smith pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute ≥500g cocaine; plea agreement included an explicit appellate-waiver covering almost all appeals, including ineffective-assistance claims except those relating to the waiver/its negotiation.
- At plea colloquy Smith confirmed he understood and voluntarily waived appellate rights; district court conditionally accepted plea pending PSR.
- PSR designated Smith as a career offender based on a prior federal narcotics conviction and an Indiana reckless-homicide conviction treated as a "crime of violence," raising his Guidelines range from 121–151 to 188–235 months.
- Smith voiced objections at sentencing only to specific PSR enhancements (firearm and maintenance-of-premises); he twice stated he had no objection to the career-offender finding during the hearing.
- The court overruled Smith’s PSR objections, granted a 5K1.1 one-level reduction, and sentenced Smith to 168 months (bottom of adjusted range).
- Smith appealed despite his waiver, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the reckless-homicide predicate for career-offender status and urging the court to create an exception for "patent" ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellate waiver bars an ineffective-assistance claim that counsel failed to raise at sentencing | Smith: waiver should not bar review because counsel’s failure was "patently" ineffective for not challenging reckless-homicide as a crime of violence | Government: waiver was clear and voluntary and broadly waived all ineffective-assistance claims except those about the waiver/its negotiation; enforce waiver | Waiver enforced; appeal dismissed — broad, knowing waiver bars Smith’s sentencing-based ineffectiveness claim |
| Whether a new exception for "patent" sentencing ineffectiveness exists to overcome a valid appellate waiver | Smith: create exception when counsel’s error is obvious and outcome-determinative | Government: no recognized exception; plea agreements are contracts and waivers are enforced per their terms | Court rejected new exception; no basis to carve out "patent" error from waiver |
| Whether constitutional claims (ineffective assistance) are exempt from appellate waivers | Smith: constitutional right to effective counsel should allow appeal despite waiver | Government: defendants can waive appellate constitutional arguments; only narrow fairness exceptions apply | Court: constitutional nature does not overcome an express waiver; only limited exceptions for fundamental fairness apply |
| Whether Smith preserved his objections below to challenge career-offender status | Smith: claims arise from counsel’s failure, so lack of objection is due to counsel | Government: Smith did not object substantively to career-offender finding at sentencing | Court: Smith did not raise the career-offender objection below; waiver and record support dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176 (7th Cir. 2014) (broad appellate waivers enforceable; limited exceptions for fundamental fairness)
- Nunez v. United States, 495 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2007) (waivers can bar post-plea ineffectiveness claims)
- Keller v. United States, 657 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (appeal waivers preclude review even of clear sentencing errors)
- Andis v. United States, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (collecting cases enforcing waiver despite obvious error)
- Wenger v. United States, 58 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1995) (purpose of appeal waivers is to surrender future appellate rights regardless of later-obvious errors)
- Hurlow v. United States, 726 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2013) (ineffectiveness claims relating to negotiation/validity of waiver are excepted from waivers)
- Jemison v. United States, 237 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2001) (enforcing waiver to dismiss ineffective-assistance appeal)