Waiving (or Forfeiting) an Unconditional Guilty Plea
In United States v. Riojas, the Fifth Circuit held that the government can waive or forfeit the waivers inherent in an unconditional guilty plea. That’s because waiver (as the Fifth Circuit recently said in an unrelated context) is not jurisdictional. So there is no requirement that a court of appeals raise or enforce an unconditional guilty plea on the court’s own initiative.
The Unconditional Plea in Riojas
The relevant facts in Riojas are straightforward. When police searched the defendant’s car, they found multiple bags of drugs. The defendant was eventually charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine as well as two firearms charges. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in the search. But the district court denied that motion.
The defendant later entered an unconditional guilty plea. The defendant was then sentenced to over 10 years’ imprisonment.
Unlike a conditional guilty plea—which expressly preserves an issue (like suppression) for appeal—an unconditional guilty plea “waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the trial court proceedings, including the denial of a suppression motion.” (Cleaned up.) So the defendant in Riojas would have appeared to waive the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. The defendant nevertheless appealed to challenge that decision.
Waiving the Waiver
In its briefing, the government did not object to the appeal or otherwise argue that the defendant had waived the suppression issue. But the Fifth Circuit raised the matter at oral argument. Only then did the government invoke the waiver. And the government argued that the court of appeals had to enforce the waiver despite the government’s tardy invocation.
The courts of appeals have split on this point. The Seventh Circuit treats unconditional guilty pleas as jurisdictional and thus enforces them on the court’s own initiative. The other court of appeals to address the issue disagree, treating these pleas as non-jurisdictional claims-processing rules.
The Fifth Circuit agreed with the claims-processing side of the split. An unconditional guilty plea waives any non-jurisdictional defects. So it is essentially an appeal waiver over those defects. And “even a waived appellate claim can still go forward if the prosecution forfeits or waives the waiver.” (Quotation marks omitted.) That’s why appeal waivers don’t affect jurisdiction.
The Fifth Circuit thus treated the unconditional guilty plea no different from an appeal waiver. The government had forfeited the effects of the unconditional guilty plea by not raising them. And all the requirements for appellate jurisdiction were present. So the court of appeals had jurisdiction.
United States v. Riojas, 2025 WL 1571825 (5th Cir. June 4, 2025), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Bradley v. Village of University Park, the Seventh Circuit determined that defendants had waived an issue by conceding it in a prior appeal. In doing so, the court explained the difference between conceding an issue for purposes of an appeal and waiving the issue such that it could not be disputed on remand.
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....