Background
Stacen Botts was charged with conspiring to distribute and distributing more than 400 grams of fentanyl. While represented by counsel, he filed several pro se motions seeking discovery, recusal of the district judge, and other relief, which the district court declined to consider because he had counsel.
Botts later entered a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), pleading guilty to a lesser included conspiracy offense. The government agreed to dismiss the distribution count and its notice seeking an enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851, and the parties agreed to a 60-month prison sentence. Botts also waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence if the court imposed that sentence, except on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. At the plea hearing, Botts confirmed that he understood the plea, its consequences, and the appeal waiver, and that his decision was voluntary.
After the plea hearing, Botts sought to withdraw his plea and revive his earlier pro se motions. The district court allowed him to represent himself with standby counsel but denied his motions, finding no fair and just reason to withdraw the plea and no need for an evidentiary hearing. It also rejected his remaining motions as meritless and imposed the agreed 60-month sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed for the reasons given in the district court’s March 25, 2026 Combined Order on Motion. It agreed that Botts knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement and appeal waiver and held that the waiver was valid, enforceable, and applicable to his challenges to the denial of his pretrial motions.
After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, the court found no nonfrivolous appellate issue outside the waiver’s scope. It declined to address Botts’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, granted appellate counsel leave to withdraw, and denied Botts’s motion for judicial notice of sealed and confidential materials from his case and related criminal cases, calling the motion “totally inappropriate.”
Key Takeaways
- A knowing and voluntary appeal waiver was enforceable against Botts’s challenges to the district court’s denial of his pretrial motions.
- The district court acted within its broad discretion in denying plea withdrawal where Botts failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason.
- The Eighth Circuit found no nonfrivolous issue outside the waiver, declined to address ineffective assistance on direct appeal, and denied the request for judicial notice of sealed and confidential materials.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the substantial effect of an appeal waiver in a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. When the plea and waiver are knowing and voluntary and the agreed sentence is imposed, the waiver may foreclose appellate review of pretrial rulings falling within its terms.
The opinion also underscores that later dissatisfaction with a plea does not itself establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal, particularly where the plea-hearing record shows that the defendant understood the agreement, the rights relinquished, and the applicable penalties.