The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue
Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Class v. United States

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

In May 2013, Rodney Class was arrested in the District of Columbia for possession of three firearms on United States Capitol Grounds in violation of 40 U.S.C. §5104(e). Class, representing himself, pleaded guilty in the district court. He appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on grounds of constitutional error and statutory error. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the district court and found Class guilty due to his guilty plea. The appellate court explained that the its precedent in United States v. Delgado-Garcia—which held that, “[u]nconditional guilty pleas that are knowing and intelligent...waive the pleading defendant[‘s] claims of error on appeal, even constitutional claims”—is binding on this case. Delgado articulates two exceptions to this rule in which a defendant may appeal: (1) “the defendant’s claimed right to not be haled into court at all” and (2) “that the court below lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case…” However, the court held that neither exception applies here.

Questions

  1. Does a guilty plea inherently waive a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction?

Conclusions

  1. No, a guilty plea alone does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of his conviction. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Court looked at several prior decisions developing its jurisprudence on how a guilty plea affects the constitutional claims available to a criminal defendant, finding a clear doctrine that "a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that—judged on its face—the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute." The Court found that Class had neither expressly nor implicitly waived his constitutional claims by pleading guilty and that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), which governs "conditional" guilty pleas, is inapplicable because the Rule's drafters specifically stated that the rule "has no application" to the types of constitutional claims raised in this case.

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined, criticizing the majority for reaching a decision not clearly grounded in the Constitution or other basis, and for failing to clarify the "confusing" doctrine established in prior cases. The dissent looked first to the Constitution and found that it does not prohibit the waiver of rights Class asserted, then found that neither is there a federal statute or rule that bars such waiver. Ultimately, the dissent found that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should govern the case and thus that an unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional claims, except for those specifically described in the prior Court cases on point.