Background
Larry Moss appealed his judgment after pleading guilty to a drug offense. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, arguing the appeal waiver was not entered into knowingly and voluntarily and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied de novo review to enforce the appeal waiver. It held that challenges to the voluntariness of the waiver were not cognizable on direct appeal because Moss never moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court. The court found that Moss’s statements at the change-of-plea hearing contradicted his claim of involuntary entry. The challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence fell within the scope of the unambiguous waiver. The court determined no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcement and that Moss’s lack of legal experience did not justify expanding the narrow exception. After an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, the court found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver.
What it means going forward
The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant’s counsel was granted permission to withdraw from representation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download