Brett Morris McAlpin v. United States

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created a statutory right of appellate review of sentences for criminal defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3742; 98 Stat. 2011 (Oct. 12, 1984). The Court, in Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 282 (2019), and in Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009), has held that principles of contract law govern the formation and interpretation of plea agreements. Petitioner Brett Morris McAlpin pleaded guilty to all counts of a criminal information. McAlpin sought appellate review of his sentence, claiming the sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The government moved to dismiss the appeal, invoking the appeal waiver provision of a purported plea agreement. McAlpin argued that the plea agreement failed, for lack of consideration, to create a valid contract, and the appeal waiver could not deny his right to appellate review of his sentence. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal and denied en banc rehearing. The Question Presented is: Should an appeal waiver in a plea agreement be enforced when the plea agreement confers no benefit on the defendant in exchange for his guilty plea, thereby eliminating the statutory right of appellate review established by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3742? The Second Circuit, in Lutchman v. United States, 910 F.3d 33, 37-38 (2018), answered that such an appeal waiver was not enforceable against a defendant seeking review of the sentence. Contradicting the Second Circuit with the ruling against Brett Morris McAlpin, the Fifth Circuit now creates a circuit split calling for the Court’s review. (i)