Garza v. Idaho
The Court ruled that when a defendant clearly tells his lawyer he wants to appeal, the lawyer must file the notice of appeal even if the defendant signed a plea agreement waiving most appeal rights, because some appeal rights always survive such waivers.
If the lawyer fails to file despite the defendant's request, courts must automatically presume the defendant was harmed, without requiring proof that any appeal would have succeeded. This resolves a split among lower courts and applies to defendants nationwide who sign plea deals with appeal waivers.
“Garza did retain a right to his appeal; he simply had fewer possible claims than some other appellants.”
The majority explains that appeal waivers never eliminate every possible ground for appeal.
How it got here: Idaho's trial court and Court of Appeals denied Garza relief, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal to resolve a split among lower courts.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Gilberto Garza signed two Idaho plea agreements, each including a clause waiving his right to appeal, and received the sentences he had bargained for. After sentencing, he repeatedly told his lawyer he wanted to appeal, but the lawyer never filed a notice of appeal, believing an appeal would be "problematic" given the waivers. Garza later sought postconviction relief, arguing his lawyer's inaction amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
The question before the Court
If a defendant signs a plea deal giving up most of his right to appeal, but still asks his lawyer to file an appeal, must the lawyer do it — and is harm to the defendant automatically assumed if the lawyer doesn't?
Why it matters
Millions of criminal defendants plead guilty and sign appeal waivers each year. This decision means defense lawyers cannot simply refuse a client's request to appeal just because of a waiver — they must file the notice or risk an automatic finding that they were constitutionally ineffective, giving many defendants a fresh chance to appeal.
What changes now
The case goes back to Idaho's courts, where Garza should now be given a new opportunity to file an appeal, to be considered on the merits with the help of counsel, as though his lawyer had filed the notice of appeal on time. The ruling settles how federal and state courts nationwide must handle similar ineffective-assistance claims involving appeal waivers, resolving a split that had divided federal appeals courts.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide what specific claims defendants may raise despite their appeal waivers, whether filing a notice of appeal ever breaches a plea agreement, or how courts should handle cases where a defendant's wish to appeal is unclear rather than expressly stated.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas argued that Flores-Ortega's presumption of prejudice should not apply because, unlike in that case, Garza's own voluntary waiver — not his lawyer's inaction — caused him to lose his appeal. He would have required Garza to show that he identified nonwaived claims, that his plea was involuntary, or that the government breached the agreement, and found the lawyer's decision not to appeal entirely reasonable given the risks a breach would have created.
Dissent in part — Justice Alito
Justice Alito joined only Parts I and II of Justice Thomas's dissent, which laid out the facts and argued that Flores-Ortega does not control cases involving appeal waivers, without joining Thomas's broader historical critique of the constitutional right to effective counsel.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance must normally show both that the lawyer's performance was unreasonable and that it caused harm, but that harm is automatically presumed in certain situations, such as when a lawyer's failure completely denies a defendant an appeal he would otherwise have pursued.
- The Court reasoned that appeal waivers are contract-like provisions that never wipe out every possible appellate claim — defendants can still challenge whether the waiver itself was made knowingly and voluntarily, and waiver language often leaves other claims open.
- Because filing a notice of appeal is a simple, low-effort administrative step that preserves a defendant's options without deciding which arguments to raise, the Court held that a lawyer who ignores a client's clear instruction to appeal acts unreasonably, regardless of any waiver.
- Since Garza retained at least some appeal rights despite his waivers, the Court concluded he had a right to an appellate proceeding, and his lawyer's failure to file completely denied him that proceeding — triggering the automatic presumption of harm from Flores-Ortega.
- The Court rejected the government's proposed rule requiring defendants to prove which specific unwaived claims they would have raised, reasoning that this would unfairly burden defendants, most of whom lack a right to counsel in these later proceedings and could not realistically make such a showing.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Roe v. Flores-Ortega (528 U. S. 470)
The Court applies and extends this case's presumption-of-prejudice rule to defendants who signed appeal waivers.
Reaffirms Rodriquez v. United States (395 U. S. 327)
The Court relies on this case to reject requiring defendants to prove their lost appeal would have had merit.