Update: The matter of Garza v. Idaho first appeared on this blog on January 7, 2019. On October 30, 2018, The United States Supreme Court heard arguments to decide whether a criminal defendant’s counsel is presumptively ineffective if counsel declines to file an appeal of a conviction because the defendant already waived the right to appeal in his plea.
On January 23, 2015, Gilberto Garza, Jr. entered an Alford plea—maintaining his innocence but conceding that the evidence is likely to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—to aggravated assault. On February 24, 2015, he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. As part of the two plea arrangements, the state of Idaho agreed to pursue neither charges of burglary and theft nor a possible felon-in-possession federal referral. The State also agreed not to ask for anti-recidivist consideration at sentencing. This last concession negated what could have been a life-sentence for Garza. However, both plea agreements required Garza to waive his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreements, the trial court sentenced Garza to two consecutive prison terms of 5 years each. At sentencing, Garza was advised of his appeal rights, despite the waiver. Garza requested that his lawyer file an appeal, but citing the appeal waiver, the lawyer failed to timely file. Garza later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial attorney was ineffective for not filing notices of appeal. The district court dismissed Garza’s petition and the Court of Appeals confirmed the plea, stating that an appeal would be problematic due to the automatic waiver contained in the plea. The Supreme Court of Idaho granted Garza’s timely petition for review. However, upholding the waiver condition of the plea agreement, the court declined to presume counsel ineffective for failing to appeal.
In a 6-3 majority opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Idaho Supreme Court’s ruling and held that when a defense lawyer forgoes his client’s request to appeal a guilty plea, as per the terms of a plea agreement, that lawyer has rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor held that “no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims.”
The decision highlighted two issues regarding the right to appeal. First, the Court opined that some claims are not waivable, such as the right to challenge a guilty plea as involuntarily given. Hence, an appeal waiver would not eliminate this ground for an appeal. In this vein, the Court reasoned that Garza retained the right to appeal some issues, notwithstanding the terms of the plea arrangements. Second, the Court rejected Idaho’s argument that the lawyer can make the strategic decision not to file an appeal based on the terms of the plea bargain. The SCOTUS decision underpins the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.2 (a), which states that a lawyer “shall abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation.” Noting that “filing a notice of appeal is, generally speaking, a simple, non-substantive act that is within the defendant’s prerogative,” the majority held the failure of Garza’s attorney to file a notice of appeal had less to do with strategy and constituted deficient conduct. Ultimately, the Court’s decision reinforces the client’s authority to determine the objectives of legal representation.
Read the full Supreme Court opinion here.
Supreme Supreme
