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
In People ex rel Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that an appeal from a remand order does not automatically stay the remand. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit weighed in on the split over whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski requires a stay after a remand appeal. […]
Continue reading....
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 […]
Continue reading....
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....