U.S. v. Limley

Decision Date27 December 2007
Docket NumberNo. 07-2029.,07-2029.
Citation510 F.3d 825
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey J. LIMLEY, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

David L. Nich, Jr., argued, Bellevue, NE, for appellant.

Robert C. Sigler, AUSA, argued, Ohama, NE, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Jeffrey J. Limley pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1). Now he appeals his conviction, claiming error in the district court's1 refusal to grant him a hearing in an effort to void the search warrant that led to his indictment. We affirm because his guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses.

In June and July of 2005, a confidential informant made four controlled purchases from Limley of a substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. Based on this information, Omaha police officers applied for and obtained a warrant to search Limley's place of business. On October 13, 2005, the officers executed the search warrant and found 48 grams of methamphetamine. A grand jury indicted Limley with five counts of distribution and possession of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Laboratory tests later showed that the substance bought by the confidential informant had no detectable traces of methamphetamine. Limley requested a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), in an effort to void the search warrant due to false statements or omissions in the warrant application. In the motion, he alleged that the informant was not searched prior to the controlled buy on June 3, 2005, and that other controlled buys from Limley were attempted but failed. At a motions hearing, Limley's counsel explained that the basis for his request for a Franks hearing was that the officer who applied for the search warrant had asserted that the substance was "suspected methamphetamine," but had not confirmed those suspicions with a field test.

The magistrate judge2 found that Limley's arguments went to whether there was probable cause, not whether the officer made false statements or recklessly disregarded the truth. Finding that Limley failed to make an adequate showing under Franks, the magistrate judge denied Limley's request for an evidentiary hearing and denied his motion to suppress because the warrant was facially sufficient and presumptively valid. The district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in its entirety.

On January 24, 2007, Limley entered into an agreement with the United States whereby he would plead guilty to Count V, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and the United States would dismiss the other four counts. Paragraph 6 of the plea agreement states:

The defendant hereby retains all rights to appeal the defendant's conviction in this case, including a waiver of all motions, defenses, and objections which the defendant could assert to the charges or to the Court's entry of Judgment against defendant, including review pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 of any sentence imposed and any and all issues inhering therein.

Five days later, Limley appeared before the district court to enter his new plea.

At the change of plea hearing, the district court advised Limley of his rights as required by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In particular, the district court asked:

Do you understand that if I accept your plea of guilty, you waive or give up your right to challenge the manner in which the government obtained its evidence against you in this case, for example, the manner in which you were questioned or searched for evidence?

After an off-record discussion with his counsel, Limley responded, "Yes, I understand. I'm sorry." On April 16, 2007, the district court accepted Limley's plea agreement and sentenced him to 84 months of imprisonment. Limley brings this appeal to challenge the denial of his motion for a Franks hearing.

A valid guilty plea is an admission of guilt that waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses. United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir.2005). If a defendant wishes to preserve his right to appeal, he should enter a conditional plea of guilty, "reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion." Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2); United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Gomez
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 10, 2018
    ......See also United States v. Limley , 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007) (pleas are presumptively unconditional). This court has not yet ...5 The Commonwealth mentions in passing in its brief that the issue before us is moot, because "the Commonwealth does not agree to a guilty plea conditioned on reserving the ......
  • United States v. Harcevic
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 9, 2021
    ......§ 2338. The explicit statement in Article 3 that its protections are "a minimum" leads us to question whether the district court was correct in concluding that the GPW precludes a signatory ...Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007) ; see Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 ......
  • Lorren v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • June 9, 2015
    ......1984) citing Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 266 (1973); United States v. Limley , 510 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir. 2007) (guilty plea serves as a waiver for all non-jurisdictional ......
  • United States v. Dewberry
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 27, 2019
    ......258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ); see also United States v. Limley , 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating a "valid guilty plea is an admission of guilt that ...— the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute.").The first task before us then is to decide whether the Sixth Amendment right to represent oneself is the type of right that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT