United States v. John Lee
888 F.3d 503
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- John Han Lee pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a clear waiver of the right to appeal any sentence within or below the Guidelines range; both Lee and his experienced counsel signed the agreement and attested they had discussed and understood it.
- At the magistrate judge's Rule 11 plea colloquy, the court did not inform Lee of, or determine that he understood, the plea-agreement appeal waiver required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N); neither defense counsel nor the prosecutor mentioned the waiver.
- The district court later accepted the plea; Lee was sentenced to a within-Guidelines term (18 months imprisonment + 3 years supervised release) and appealed, challenging supervised-release conditions.
- Lee did not object at the plea hearing to the Rule 11 omission; on appeal he argued the waiver is unenforceable because the court failed to comply with Rule 11(b)(1)(N).
- The panel majority held that Rule 11(b)(1)(N) error is subject to Rule 11(h) harmless-error review and that the entire record (written agreement, signatures, and plea colloquy statements) can show the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
- The majority concluded Lee knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his appellate right and dismissed the appeal; Judge Rogers dissented, arguing the wholesale omission of the Rule 11(b)(1)(N) inquiry plainly affected Lee's substantial rights and remand was required to consider supervised-release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of district court's failure at plea hearing to inform/confirm defendant's understanding of appeal waiver under Rule 11(b)(1)(N) | Lee: omission renders waiver unenforceable because no record that he understood he was giving up appeal rights | Government: waiver can still be enforced if the entire record shows the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | Majority: Rule 11(b)(1)(N) error is subject to Rule 11(h) harmless-error analysis; enforce waiver where record (written agreement, signatures, plea colloquy) shows knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver |
| Standard of review when defendant failed to object to Rule 11 error in district court | Lee: must show error affected substantial rights; omission here did so because no substitute on record for required inquiry | Government: burden on defendant to show waiver was not knowing, intelligent, voluntary; written agreement and colloquy suffice | Majority: plain/forfeited-error review applies; defendant must show substantial-rights prejudice; Lee failed to meet burden |
| Appropriate inquiry to determine whether waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | Lee: focus on whether record contains a functional substitute for the Rule 11(b)(1)(N) colloquy and whether he understood the waiver | Government: evaluate the entire record (clarity of agreement, signatures, counsel's role, defendant's statements) | Majority: courts must examine entire record; written plea agreement is strong evidence and here supports enforcement |
| Remedy if appeal waiver is invalid | Lee: waiver invalid -> remand to permit appeal; alternative relief if needed | Government: enforce waiver where valid; if invalid, remedy varies (court may void waiver or allow withdrawal) | Majority: did not reach remedy because waiver valid; dissent would void/enjoin enforcement and remand as to supervised-release conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (appeal-waiver enforceability when waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- United States v. Guillen, 561 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (defendant must understand risks of appellate waiver; circumstances when waiver should not be enforced)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (Rule 11(h) harmless-error review and consultation of the whole record)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that Rule 11 error affected decision to plead when seeking reversal)
- United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (oral sentence controls; remand to correct written judgment conflicting with oral pronouncement)