Garza v. Idaho

Garza asked whether his lawyer was ineffective for not filing a notice of appeal after he requested one, even though his plea agreement waived some appeal rights. The Supreme Court said the usual presumption of prejudice still applies because some issues may remain appealable despite the waiver.

The Court decided that the usual presumption of prejudice applies even when a plea agreement includes an appeal waiver. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

This affects criminal defendants who sign plea deals with appeal waivers and still want to challenge something in their case. For example, a lawyer generally cannot refuse to file a notice of appeal just because the plea deal includes a waiver.

The Supreme Court has finished this case. In practice, the decision guides lower courts and lawyers handling plea agreements and requested appeals.

The case asked whether a lawyer gives ineffective assistance by refusing to file a notice of appeal after the client asks. That question remained even though Garza signed a plea deal waiving some appeal rights.

It means defendants may still get the benefit of the usual presumption of prejudice when a lawyer ignores a request to appeal. Appeal waivers do not automatically erase every possible appellate issue.

The Court's work on this case is over. Lower courts and defense lawyers must apply this rule in future cases involving appeal waivers and requested appeals.