Supreme Court Statement on Plea Agreement Waivers

This statement signals that lower courts should re-evaluate whether plea agreement waivers can prevent defendants from challenging convictions that are later found to be unconstitutional, potentially impacting the rights of individuals currently serving sentences for crimes that have since been invalidated.

• •The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Jones v. United States.
• •Cedric Ray Jones was convicted in 2015 for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
• •Jones signed a plea agreement waiving his right to appeal or contest his conviction in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §2241 and §2255.
• •Jones was sentenced to nearly 48 years in prison, including a 7-year consecutive sentence for the §924(c) charge.
• •In 2018, Jones filed a motion to vacate his conviction, arguing the §924(c) residual clause was unconstitutionally vague.
• •The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in United States v. Davis confirmed that the §924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
• •The District Court and the Fifth Circuit enforced the waiver in Jones's plea agreement, denying his motion to vacate despite the Davis ruling.
• •Justice Sotomayor suggests that enforcing waivers in cases where a conviction is based on an unconstitutional statute may constitute a 'miscarriage of justice' that brings the judicial system into disrepute.
• •Justice Sotomayor encourages lower courts to apply the reasoning from Hunter v. United States to determine if waivers should be set aside in cases involving constitutional challenges to convictions.

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.