Law360 (October 5, 2026, 6:52 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated a Second Circuit decision dismissing the sentencing appeal of a man who pled guilty to a role in a murder-for-hire plot, telling the circuit court to take another look in light of the high court's new miscarriage-of-justice exception for criminal appeal waivers.

Justices cited Hunter v. U.S., their 8-1 decision in June that held that criminal defendants who agree in plea deals not to appeal their sentences can still appeal if the sentence would result in a "miscarriage of justice."

The case stems from defendant Julian Snipe's role in Anthony Zottola's plot to kill his father, Sylvester Zottola, and brother, Salvatore Zottola, in order to inherit the father's lucrative real estate portfolio, according to Snipe's petition. Conspirators killed Sylvester Zottola and left Salvatore Zottola seriously wounded in separate attacks.

Snipe helped to secure a car and rode along with the shooter and others for the July 11, 2018, attack on Salvatore Zottola, according to Snipe's petition.

On Oct. 4, 2018, other members of the conspiracy killed Sylvester Zottola. Snipe claimed he did not participate in the father's murder.

In May 2022, Snipe entered into a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, which called for him to plead guilty to lesser included offenses of conspiracy and murder-for-hire causing personal injury. The counts referred to Salvatore Zottola, who was injured, not killed. However, Snipe did not specifically name the victim in his allocution, according to his petition.

The government agreed to drop all other charges and take no position on sentencing within the guideline range. The deal did not include an admission of guilt for a role in the successful murder, the petition said.

At sentencing, however, the district court surprised Snipe. The court said it would also consider the murder of Sylvester Zottola, despite Snipe's guilty plea only to causing serious injury. The judge cited U.S.S.G. Section 1B1.2(d), Application Note 4, and "the-never-before-mentioned Second Circuit's nearly three-decades-old decision" in 1997's U.S. v. Malpeso .

"The sentencing judge pronounced in open court that because the 'plea is unclear as to which offenses were the object of a defendant's conspiracy,' it would 'find beyond reasonable doubt that defendant Snipe entered into the conspiracy to commit a murder-for-hire involving both Sylvester and Salvatore Zottola. And therefore I consider the murder of Sylvester Zottola when calculating defendant Snipe's offense level in conducting the sentencing guidelines grouping analysis,'" according to Snipe's petition. 

The district judge later added that "although defendant pled guilty only to conspiring to committing a murder-for-hire that resulted in Salvatore Zottola's grievous injuries, I cannot turn a blind eye to the text messages that show that defendant clearly knew about the evidence of a broader conspiracy that defendant Shelton was orchestrating which resulted in the successful murder of Sylvester Zottola."

The court rejected his request for a 15-year sentence. Instead, the judge started at the 40-year statutory maximum guideline and imposed a downward variance sentence of concurrent 20-year terms on each count.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Snipe's appellate counsel argued that the judgment went far beyond the bounds of his plea, adding that it remained unclear what text-message evidence the judge had referred to during the sentencing.

"Nothing in Mr. Snipe's plea agreement, and nothing at his change of plea hearing, alerted him to the fact that he would be judicially declared substantively guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder for hire conspiracy targeting Sylvester the father, in open court, essentially a criminal conviction for an additional crime and victim he did not admit, or that he would be sentenced for two crimes to two victims, rather than crimes against a singular victim, or that the court would use a first degree murder guideline to sentence him," his petition said. "The words 'first degree murder,' or 'Sylvester,' appeared nowhere in his plea agreement."

Snipe appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit, arguing that the sentence was unconstitutional and that he did not waive the right to appeal convictions and sentencing for unadmitted crimes. He also argued that the government failed to uphold its side of the plea deal by urging the court to impose a 30-year sentence on Snipe.

The Second Circuit had ruled that Snipe was bound by his plea agreement, dismissed his appeal, and said his argument in a Rule 28(j) letter citing the then-pending high court case Hunter v. U.S. was insufficiently preserved.

An attorney for Snipe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Snipe is represented by Ines McGillion of Ines McGillion Law Offices PLLC.

Counsel information for the government was not available.

The case is Julian Snipe v. U.S., case number 25-7532, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by Kelly Duncan.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.