In United States v. Goodall, --- F.4th ---, No. 18-10004 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court dismissed Goodall’s appeal seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence for Hobbs Act conspiracy.
The government conceded that Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a “crime of violence” under the “elements clause,” but argued that Goodall’s appellate waiver barred his challenge.
The Court agreed. The introduction to the opinion tells the story.
Facing potentially more than seven decades in prison for his role in a string of armed robberies, Eric Goodall struck a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)). He also accepted a 20-year sentencing recommendation and agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction or sentence. The district court imposed an even shorter sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. About a year and a half after his sentencing, the Supreme Court in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), held that a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery cannot be a crime of violence under the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).Goodall now tries to wriggle his way out of his plea deal. Despite his appellate waiver, Goodall seeks to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that he could not have knowingly waived an appellate issue not yet in existence at the time of his plea deal. He also asks this court to expand our “illegal sentence” exception to an appellate waiver and carve out yet another exemption for an “illegal conviction.” See United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2016).We uphold the appellate waiver in Goodall’s plea agreement and thus dismiss his appeal. By waiving his appellate rights, Goodall knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk that the law might change in his favor. We also decline to expand the “illegal sentence” exception. Our decision in Torres carefully circumscribed the definition of “illegal sentence,” and its reasoning does not apply to purportedly “illegal convictions.”
