Garza v. Idaho
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 27, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- February 27, 2019
- Term
- October Term 2018
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), this 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." Id., at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1029. This case asks whether that rule applies even when the defendant has, in the course of pleading guilty, signed what is often called an "appeal waiver"-that is, an agreement forgoing certain, but not all, possible appellate claims. We hold that the presumption of prejudice recognized in Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether the defendant has signed an appeal waiver. I In early 2015, petitioner Gilberto Garza, Jr., signed two plea agreements, each arising from criminal charges brought by the State of Idaho. Each agreement included a clause stating that Garza "waive[d] his right to appeal." App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a, 49a. The Idaho trial court accepted the agreements and sentenced Garza to terms of prison in accordance with the agreements. Shortly after sentencing, Garza told his trial counsel that he wished to appeal. In the days that followed, he would later attest, Garza "continuously reminded" his attorney of this directive "via phone calls…
Excerpt of a 62,671-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.