Roe v. Flores-Ortega

18 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. SCOTUS will address effect of lawyer’s failure to file notice of appeal where plea agreement included an appeal waiver

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 19, 2018

    Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. Idaho, USSC No. 17-1026, certiorari granted 6/18/18Question presented:Does the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), apply where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver?Decision below: Garza v. State, 405 P.3d 576 (Idaho 2017)USSC DocketScotusblog page (includes links to cert petition, briefs, and commentary)This case will be of interest to anyone handling federal criminal cases, where, according to one amicus brief (at 4), most plea agreements include a waiver of appeal. Under Flores-Ortega, if trial counsel fails to file a notice of appeal and the defendant shows he would have appeal but for trial counsel’s failure, the defendant is entitled to a presumption that counsel’s failure prejudiced the defendant.

  2. Attorney-Client Issues - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel -- Appeal

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000)Counsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.Franco v. United States, 762 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2014)In this §2255 proceeding, the district court erred in denying the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he requested that his attorney to file a notice of appeal.Payne v. Stansberry, 760 F.3d 10 (D. C. Cir. 2014)The trial judge instructed the jury (according to the transcript), “If you find that the government has failed to prove any element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find that defendant guilty.”

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, December 25, 2006

    Capital Defense NewsletterDecember 24, 2006

    Id. at 686; see also Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 482, 120 S. Ct. 1029, 145 L. Ed. 2d 985 (2000) (noting that "the right to the effective assistance of counsel is recognized not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair [proceeding]" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). This fairness is "derive[d] from the adversarial nature of our justice system, which is premised on the 'well-tested principle that truth--as well as fairness--is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.'"

  4. Capital Defense Weekly, April 1, 2002

    Capital Defense NewsletterMarch 31, 2002

    Several federal courts of appeals have held that there is no constitutional right to counsel for post-appeal motions for new trial. United States v. Tajeddini, 945 F.2d 458, 470 (1st Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S. Ct. 1029, 145 L. Ed. 2d 985 (2000); United States v. Lee, 168 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 513 F.2d 423, 424 (D.C. Cir. 1975); United States v. Birrell, 482 F.2d 890, 892 (2d Cir. 1973). [*8] But three federal courts of appeals have held, on particular facts, that the motion for new trial phase is a critical stage of the prosecution.

  5. 2019: The (Early) Year in Review (Part 4)

    The Public Defender Service for the District of ColumbiaOctober 24, 2019

    POST-CONVICTION ISSUESIneffective Assistance of CounselFree Image 1428123, Public DomainGarza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019)–Holding: When trial counsel fails to file an appeal as instructed, the presumption of prejudice identified in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), applies, even when the defendant has signed an explicit waiver of appeal.Of Note: This opinion abrogates Stewart v. United States, 37 A.3d 870, 877 (D.C. 2012).Blackmon v. U.S., 18-CO-73 (decided September 12, 2019) –Holding: Where appellant claimed that counsel’s ineffective assistance led him to reject a plea offer, see Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), the trial court did not err in finding that appellant was not prejudiced by his lawyer’s advice regarding the maximum sentence he could receive if he went to trial, given the court’s determination that appellant could not have “gotten through a plea colloquy,” even if he had tried to accept the government’s offer.

  6. Consulting with Client Regarding Appeal is Mandatory, Even if Client Waived Appeal Rights

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoSHARI ALLISONOctober 23, 2019

    SCOTUS defined “consult” as “advising the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal, and making a reasonable effort to discover the defendant’s wishes.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 478 (2000). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Herring pled to one count of child porn.

  7. SCOTUS: lawyer who ignores client’s request for appeal from guilty plea is ineffective

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMarch 7, 2019

    Id. at 8.Bottom line: Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) held that when an attorney’s deficient performance costs a defendant an appeal he otherwise would have taken, the court must presume prejudice without requiring the defendant to show that his underlying claims had merit. This principle also applies when the defendant enters a plea agreement which states that he “waives his right to appeal.”

  8. The Supreme Court - February 27, 2019

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPTimothy DroskeFebruary 28, 2019

    Today, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Extending its holding in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), the Court held that—even where a defendant has signed an appeal waiver—prejudice is presumed when an attorney’s deficient performance costs the defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued. The Court’s decision is available here.

  9. The Supreme Court - February 27, 2019

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPFebruary 27, 2019

    Today, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Extending its holding in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), the Court held that—even where a defendant has signed an appeal waiver—prejudice is presumed when an attorney’s deficient performance costs the defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued. The Court’s decision is available here.

  10. The Supreme Court - June 18, 2018

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPTimothy DroskeJune 19, 2018

    Sturgeon v. Frost, No. 17-949: Whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over State, Native Corporation, and private land physically within the boundaries of the National Park System in Alaska.Garza v. Idaho, No. 17-1026: Does the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), apply where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver?Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.