On October 30, 2018, The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Garza v. Idaho 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. In accordance with the plea agreements, the trial court sentenced Garza to two consecutive prison terms of 5 years each. The terms of both plea agreements required Garza to waive his right to appeal. During sentencing, the court acknowledged this waiver, but advised Garza of his appeal rights anyway. Garza later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming his trail attorney was ineffective for not filing notices of appeal. Garza’s attorney stated that he did not file an appeal because of the waiver contained in the plea agreements. 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 district court dismissed Garza’s petition, and the Court of Appeals confirmed.
The Supreme Court of Idaho granted Garza’s timely petition for review. The court declined to presume counsel ineffective for failing to appeal at Garza’s request when Garza had waived the right to appeal as part of a plea agreement. The court further explained that to show ineffective assistance of counsel, Garza must show deficient conduct and resulting prejudice (see ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.3 for commentary on this principle). The court then cited to supporting precedent and the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 when it affirmed that a criminal defense attorney has a duty to the judicial system to exercise professional judgment and not file frivolous litigation (see also ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1 for commentary). Opining that the defendant would likely have his appeal dismissed, given the validity of the waiver, the Court determined that Garza’s attorney exercised professional judgment in upholding the plea agreements that contained Garza’s waiver of his right to appeal. In strong language, the Court refused to presume ineffective assistance of counsel when such “frivolous and futile litigation” is kept out of the courts.
The decision of The United States Supreme Court is pending.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Idaho is Garza v. State, 405 P.3d 576 (Idaho 2017).
Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant
