Abstract
In Garza v. Idaho, the Supreme Court resolved a split in authority about whether courts should presume counsel prejudiced a criminal defendant’s case when counsel failed to file a notice of appeal, holding the presumption of prejudice applies regardless of a defendant’s appeal waiver. By correctly extending Roe v. Flores-Ortega’s rule which requires courts to presume prejudice, the Court expanded the presumption’s application for ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Sixth Amendment.
Overall, Garza protected a defendant’s right to appeal despite an appeal waiver, as counsel must now act on the defendant’s appeal request. If counsel fails to file a notice of appeal, defendants have a lower burden in proving counsel’s ineffective assistance after Garza. The decision, however, may decrease the leniency and finality of plea bargain sentencings because of the likely increase in appeals.
First Page
271
Recommended Citation
Jackie
McDonnell,
Garza v. Idaho: Prioritizing Client Autonomy in Criminal Appeals Regardless of an Appeal Waiver,
52
Loy. U. Chi. L. J.
271
(2021).
Available at:
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol52/iss1/9