Skip to content
Name: Garza v. Idaho
Case #: 17-1026
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 02/27/2019
Summary

The presumption of prejudice recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega when trial counsel fails to file a notice of appeal when instructed applies regardless of whether the defendant has signed an appeal waiver. Garza signed two plea agreements, each containing a clause stating that he waived his right to appeal. Shortly after sentencing, Garza told his attorney that he wished to appeal. Instead of filing the notice of appeal, the attorney informed Garza that an appeal would be “problematic” given his appeal waiver. After the period of time for Garza to preserve an appeal lapsed, he sought state postconviction relief alleging that his attorney had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal despite his repeated requests. The Idaho Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Garza could not show the requisite deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split in authority. Held: Reversed and remanded. In Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470, 484, the court held that when an attorney’s deficient performance costs a defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued, prejudice to the defendant should be presumed with no further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims. In this case, the court concluded this presumption applies even when the defendant has signed an appeal waiver. This ruling is consistent with the fact that even the broadest appeal waiver does not deprive a defendant of all appellate claims. A valid and enforceable appeal waiver only precludes challenges that fall within its scope. All jurisdictions appear to treat at least some claims as unwaiveable. Most fundamentally, defendants retain the right to challenge whether the waiver itself is valid and enforceable. “Accordingly, where, as here, an attorney performed deficiently in failing to file a notice of appeal despite the defendant’s express instructions, prejudice is presumed ‘with no further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims.'” (Quoting Flores-Ortega, at p. 484.) [Editor’s Note: Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito (in part) and Gorsuch.]

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf