The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of Andrew Frank Lerblance, who was sentenced to 84 months in prison for distributing methamphetamine. The ruling, filed on October 28, 2026, confirms that Lerblance had waived his right to appeal in a plea agreement, which significantly impacts his ability to challenge his conviction. This case highlights the importance of understanding plea agreements and the rights defendants give up when entering guilty pleas.

Lerblance, who pleaded guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), faced a statutory maximum sentence of 480 months but received a sentence below the advisory guideline range. His case raises questions about the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings, particularly regarding appeals and plea agreements.

Background

The case began when the government charged Lerblance with knowingly distributing over 50 grams of methamphetamine. He waived his right to an indictment and a jury trial, opting instead to plead guilty. As part of his plea agreement, Lerblance signed a document that included a waiver of his appellate rights.

This waiver allowed him to appeal only if his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Since Lerblance received a sentence of 84 months, which is significantly less than the maximum, his appeal was limited. The district court accepted his guilty plea after determining that it was made knowingly and voluntarily.

The Ruling

The Tenth Circuit, consisting of Judges Hartz, Tymkovich, and McHugh, ruled to dismiss Lerblance's appeal after reviewing an Anders brief filed by his attorney. This type of brief is used when an attorney believes an appeal is frivolous. The court noted that the appeal waiver was valid and that Lerblance had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

The court stated, "We conclude that Lerblance’s appeal is wholly frivolous."

Furthermore, the court found that the requirements for enforcing the appeal waiver were met, meaning that Lerblance could not challenge his sentence or conviction. The ruling emphasized that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Impact

This ruling underscores the significance of plea agreements in the criminal justice system. Defendants must understand that by entering a guilty plea and signing a waiver, they may be giving up their right to appeal their conviction. The Tenth Circuit's decision reinforces the principle that courts will uphold these waivers as long as they are made knowingly and voluntarily.

The outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for future cases involving plea agreements and appeal waivers. It clarifies that defendants who sign such waivers must be aware of the implications, as they may find it challenging to contest their sentences later.

What's Next

Lerblance's case appears to be concluded at the appellate level, as the court dismissed the appeal and granted his attorney's motion to withdraw. There is no indication in the court filing that Lerblance plans to pursue further legal action or that there are related cases pending.