Waiver of Suppression-Related Appeals by Unconditional Guilty Pleas: United States v. Boykins

Introduction

United States v. Boykins, 24‐6159 (10th Cir. May 19, 2025), addresses the consequences of an unconditional guilty plea on a defendant’s ability to challenge a pre-plea suppression ruling and clarifies the standards for reviewing collateral sentencing errors under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The appellant, Antonio Lamurael Boykins, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after a traffic stop in Oklahoma City led to the discovery of a firearm during a warrantless vehicle search. Boykins moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that his possession of medical marijuana—which was legal under Oklahoma law—undermined probable cause for the search. After the district court denied suppression, Boykins entered an unconditional plea of guilty. He later challenged both the suppression ruling and the sentencing calculations on appeal. The Tenth Circuit, affirming the district court, held that an unconditional guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional pre-plea challenges and that Boykins failed to demonstrate plain error in the sentencing guideline calculation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Boykins’s conviction and sentence on two principal grounds:

Waiver by Unconditional Guilty Plea: The court held that Boykins’s unconditional plea foreclosed his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. Citing Tollett v. Henderson (411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)) and subsequent Tenth Circuit decisions, it reaffirmed that a voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, including suppression challenges, unless the plea is entered under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) as a “conditional plea.”
Plain Error Review of Sentencing Calculation: The court reviewed Boykins’s challenge to the inclusion of a juvenile assault conviction in his criminal history score for plain error. It found no merit in his claim that the conviction was treated incorrectly as an adult conviction, and in any event, determined that even if three points had been erroneously added, Boykins’s placement in Criminal History Category VI would remain unchanged, thus failing to show prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Tollett v. Henderson (411 U.S. 258 (1973)) established that “a voluntary plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects” and bars appellate review of pre-plea constitutional claims.
United States v. Nooner (565 F.2d 633 (10th Cir. 1977)), Davis (900 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir. 1990)), and Salazar (323 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2003)) reaffirm that an unconditional plea renders motion-to-suppress rulings unreviewable on direct appeal.
United States v. Spaeth (69 F.4th 1190 (10th Cir. 2023)) explained the mechanics of conditional pleas under Rule 11(a)(2) and noted that “defendants may preserve motions to suppress for appellate review by entering conditional guilty pleas.”
United States v. Avila (733 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2013)) addressed the Rule 11 colloquy requirements when a plea agreement contains an appellate‐waiver clause, but clarified that no parallel requirement exists for “blind” or unconditional pleas.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) prescribes the district court’s obligations during the plea colloquy, including advising the defendant of the rights waived by a guilty plea.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in two stages:

Scope of Waiver: Because Boykins admitted guilt in open court through an unconditional plea, Tollett and its progeny barred him from challenging the denial of his suppression motion on direct appeal. He did not invoke Rule 11(a)(2) to preserve his right to appeal that specific ruling, and there was no plea agreement containing an express appeal waiver requiring special colloquy under Rule 11(b)(1)(N).
Sentencing Points and Plain Error: Boykins contested the inclusion of three points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d)(1) for an assault conviction committed at age 17. The court observed that the PSR and state court records demonstrated he was certified and convicted as an adult. Even if error had occurred, Boykins failed to show prejudice, because with or without those three points he remained in Criminal History Category VI (the highest category), and there was no reasonable probability the court would have imposed a lower sentence.

Impact

United States v. Boykins reinforces two important principles:

Unconditional Pleas and Appellate Rights: Defendants who plead guilty without preserving specific issues cannot litigate pre-plea constitutional claims on direct appeal. Trial courts and counsel should carefully consider whether to enter conditional pleas under Rule 11(a)(2) when suppression or other pre-trial rulings are contested.
Plain Error in Sentencing Guideline Calculations: Challenges to guideline calculations not raised below are reviewed for plain error, requiring a showing of clear legal mistake that affects substantial rights. Even clear guideline miscalculations may fail to alter the guideline range or sentencing outcome and thus escape reversal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unconditional vs. Conditional Plea: An unconditional (or “blind”) plea admits guilt without preserving any right to appeal non-jurisdictional issues. A conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) allows a defendant to plead guilty while preserving specific appellate rights, such as the right to appeal suppression denials.
Suppression Motion: A pre-trial request to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (e.g., unlawful searches or seizures). If a defendant pleads guilty unconditionally, challenges to suppression rulings generally become unreviewable.
Plain Error Review: When a defendant fails to raise an objection in the trial court, appellate courts apply a four-part test: (1) error, (2) that is plain (clear or obvious), (3) affecting substantial rights (prejudicial), and (4) seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Criminal History Category: Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s prior convictions earn points. The total points place the defendant in one of six categories (I through VI). Higher categories yield longer guideline ranges. Some points can be added for juvenile offenses if treated as adult convictions under § 4A1.2(d).

Conclusion

United States v. Boykins confirms that an unconditional guilty plea operates as a broad waiver of non-jurisdictional defenses, including suppression motions, unless the plea is conditioned to preserve those issues on appeal. It also exemplifies the rigors of plain error review in sentencing, demonstrating that appellate courts will not second-guess guideline calculations unless a clear mistake alters the defendant’s guideline range or likely sentence. For practitioners, Boykins underscores the importance of strategic plea planning and timely objection to sentencing computations to preserve client rights effectively.