Moreno Lee Jackson, a defendant with a history of firearm and drug offenses, pleaded guilty to illegally possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During the plea process, Jackson signed a plea agreement acknowledging that he had three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, thereby subjecting him to the mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). At his plea hearing, Jackson confirmed under oath that he understood these sentencing provisions and that the court was obligated to impose a sentence of at least 15 years. The district court calculated his sentence based on these predicates, resulting in a 212-month term. On appeal, Jackson argued that one of his prior convictions did not qualify as a 'serious drug offense' under federal law, making the ACCA enhancement inapplicable and the sentence procedurally unreasonable. However, he had not raised this specific objection in the district court.
The Sixth Circuit addressed whether Jackson's failure to object in the district court constituted a waiver of his right to appeal or merely invited error. The majority, led by Judge Batchelder, analyzed the distinction between waiver and invited error, noting that while the line can be hazy, Jackson's actions clearly fell on the side of waiver. The court cited its longstanding precedent that a defendant waives an argument when they explicitly agree with a judge's proposed course of conduct and then later charge the court with error. Jackson had signed a plea agreement stating he was subject to enhanced penalties and had affirmed this understanding twice during his plea hearing. The court rejected Jackson's argument that he merely invited error because he misunderstood the law, holding that his express agreements constituted an intentional relinquishment of his known right to challenge the sentence. The court clarified that while it has discretion to review invited errors to prevent manifest injustice, it does not have such discretion for waived claims. Consequently, the court declined to review the merits of whether Jackson's prior convictions actually triggered the ACCA enhancement.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, leaving Jackson subject to his 212-month sentence. The decision reinforces the strict application of the waiver doctrine in the Sixth Circuit, signaling that defendants who explicitly agree to sentencing enhancements in plea agreements cannot later challenge those enhancements on appeal, even if the legal basis for the enhancement is questionable. The court noted that any claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise Jackson on this issue must be raised in a post-conviction collateral proceeding, not on direct appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download