The Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion in *Kimberly R. Anderson v. State of Indiana* that clarifies the boundaries of criminal appeal waivers and when defendants retain the right to challenge their sentences despite waiving appellate rights.
The court held that criminal appeal waivers function like contract provisions and only bar appeals that fall within their defined scope. Even comprehensive waivers that purport to foreclose all appeals cannot legally prevent defendants from challenging 'illegal' sentences that were not bargained for in plea negotiations.
**The Case Background**
In 2023, Kimberly Anderson faced charges after stabbing her boyfriend with a box cutter and threatening to kill him. The State charged her with three crimes: Level 5 felony domestic battery by means of a deadly weapon, Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Level 6 felony intimidation.
Shortly before her scheduled trial date, Anderson entered into a plea agreement with the State. The case proceeded through the Marion County Superior Court under Judge Jennifer Harrison and Magistrate Steven Rubick before reaching the Indiana Supreme Court on petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals.
**The Court's Ruling**
Writing for the majority, Justice Slaughter emphasized that while criminal defendants have a constitutional right to appeal their sentences, they can validly waive this right through appeal waivers. However, the court stressed that such waivers operate like any contract provision and only prevent appeals that fall within their specific scope.
The court established a clear standard for determining what constitutes an 'illegal' sentence that cannot be waived. According to the opinion, a sentence qualifies as illegal only if it either falls outside the prescribed statutory sentencing range or violates constitutional protections. These types of sentences represent unbargained-for penalties that defendants could not reasonably have anticipated when agreeing to waive their appellate rights.
'Under our precedent, even a comprehensive waiver that purports to foreclose all appeals cannot legally prevent a defendant from challenging an unbargained-for illegal sentence,' the court wrote.
In Anderson's specific case, the court determined that the challenged sentence was neither outside the statutory range nor unconstitutional. Therefore, the appeal waiver remained valid and enforceable, leading the court to dismiss the appeal.
**Legal Implications**
This ruling provides important guidance for both criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors in structuring plea agreements. The decision reinforces that appeal waivers, while generally enforceable, cannot completely eliminate a defendant's right to challenge fundamentally flawed sentences.
The opinion clarifies that defendants retain certain core protections even when they agree to waive appellate rights. Sentences that exceed statutory maximums or violate constitutional principles remain subject to appellate review regardless of waiver provisions in plea agreements.
For defense counsel, the ruling emphasizes the importance of carefully reviewing proposed sentences during plea negotiations to ensure they fall within statutory parameters and comply with constitutional requirements. Attorneys can advise clients that appeal waivers will not prevent challenges to sentences that are truly illegal under the court's defined standard.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, must ensure that sentences included in plea agreements comply with statutory ranges and constitutional requirements to make appeal waivers fully effective.
**Broader Context**
The decision reflects ongoing tensions in criminal law between judicial efficiency and defendants' rights. Appeal waivers have become increasingly common in plea agreements as courts seek to manage heavy caseloads and encourage plea bargaining. However, courts must balance these efficiency concerns against fundamental constitutional protections for criminal defendants.
The Indiana Supreme Court's approach follows similar reasoning adopted by other state and federal courts that have addressed the scope of criminal appeal waivers. By limiting the concept of 'illegal' sentences to specific categories, the court provides predictable boundaries for when waivers will be enforced.
**Court Composition**
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Molter joined Justice Slaughter's majority opinion. Justice Goff concurred in the judgment but wrote a separate opinion, though the content of that concurrence was not included in the available court documents.
The case was argued before the court on June 18, 2025, and decided on November 13, 2025, following the court's review of the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Case No. 24A-CR-1358.
**What's Next**
The *Anderson* decision will likely influence how Indiana trial courts evaluate the validity of appeal waivers in future cases. Defense attorneys may cite the ruling when challenging sentences they believe fall outside statutory ranges or violate constitutional principles, while prosecutors will need to ensure plea agreements comply with the court's standards for enforceable waivers.
The ruling provides clarity for lower courts in determining when appeal waivers bar appellate review and when defendants retain the right to challenge their sentences despite waiver provisions.