Roe v. Flores-Ortega

2000-02-23

Headline: Court narrows lawyers’ automatic duty to file appeals, requiring consultation when an appeal seems likely or the defendant shows interest, and asks proof one would have appealed to show harm.

Holding: The Court ruled that lawyers must consult about appeals when a rational defendant would likely want one or shows interest, and a defendant must show a reasonable probability he would have appealed to prove prejudice.

Real World Impact:

Requires defense lawyers to consult about appeals in many cases.
Makes defendants show they likely would have appealed to get relief.
Rejects a bright-line rule forcing counsel always to file appeals.

Topics: right to appeal, ineffective assistance of counsel, criminal appeals, guilty pleas

Summary

Background

The case involves Lucio Flores-Ortega, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in California and was sentenced to 15 years to life. After sentencing the judge told him he could appeal within 60 days and that counsel would be appointed if needed. Although Flores-Ortega's lawyer wrote “bring appeal papers” in her file, no notice of appeal was filed in time; a late filing was rejected and state courts denied relief. The Ninth Circuit ordered a new appeal based on its rule that counsel must file an appeal unless the defendant consents to abandonment.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether a lawyer who fails to file an appeal can be constitutionally ineffective. The Court applied the familiar two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel and rejected a blanket rule that counsel must always file an appeal. Instead, the majority said counsel must consult about an appeal when there is reason to think a rational defendant would want one (for example, nonfrivolous grounds) or when the defendant reasonably showed interest. If counsel fails to consult and that failure is constitutionally deficient, the defendant must still show a reasonable probability that, but for the failure, he would have timely appealed.

Real world impact

The ruling clarifies when lawyers must discuss appeals and when a defendant has shown real harm from a lost appeal. It sends the case back to lower courts to examine what was said between Flores-Ortega and his lawyer and whether he was prejudiced by the lack of consultation. The decision replaces a per se rule with a fact-based approach used across many cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Breyer emphasized guilty-plea cases and said counsel "almost always" has a duty to consult. Justice Souter (joined by two others) argued counsel should "almost always" consult, and Justice Ginsburg joined that view in part. These opinions urge a stronger, more routine consultation duty.