In People v. Thomas, 2019 N.Y. Slip. Op. 08545 (2019), and its two companion cases, a sharply divided New York Court of Appeals considered the validity of waivers of appellate rights. This essay examines Thomas and the law of appellate waivers. To borrow Judge Rowan Wilson’s words, the law has become a “Daedalean maze”—a labyrinth like the one that Daedalus is said to have designed for King Minos to hold Minotaur.

Background

Victor Thomas was charged with the class B violent felonies of first-degree assault and first-degree gang assault. After a failed attempt to suppress a post-arrest statement (“You got me”), he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and a five-year prison sentence. As part of his guilty plea, he waived his right to appeal. The written waiver stated that he “waive[d] any and all rights to appeal including the right to file a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction” with the exception of four claims: (1) that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) that he was not competent to stand trial; (3) that his sentence was illegal; and (4) that his plea and appeal waiver were involuntary. (The excepted claims cannot be waived under settled New York law.) Orally, the court asked him if he understood that he was waiving his right “to challenge to a higher court” his plea and sentence and if he had a sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel about the rights he was surrendering. Thomas appealed, seeking review of the validity of the appeal waiver and the adverse suppression ruling. The First Department upheld the waiver and, in the alternative, found that the suppression ruling was sound.