Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 19

2 

GARZA v. IDAHO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

entered an Alford1 plea to aggravated assault and pleaded 
guilty  to  possession  with  intent  to  deliver  methampheta-
mine.  Under  the  terms  of  the  plea  agreements,  Idaho
agreed  not  to  (1)  file  additional  burglary  and  grand  theft 
charges; (2) refer Garza for federal prosecution on a charge
of  unlawful  possession  of  ammunition  by  a  felon,  see  18
U. S. C.  §922(g)(1);  or  (3)  seek  a  “Persistent  violator” 
sentencing  enhancement  that  would  expose  Garza  to  a 
potential  life  sentence,  see  Idaho  Code  Ann.  §19–2514 
(2017).  In exchange, Garza agreed to “ ‘waiv[e] his right to 
appeal’ ”  and  his  right  to  file  a  motion  for  correction  or 
reduction  of  his  sentence.2  Ante,  at  2.  And  both  parties 
agreed to specific sentences totaling 10 years of imprison-
ment,  which  would  be  binding  on  the  District  Court  if  it
accepted  the  plea  agreements.    See  Idaho  Crim.  Rules 
11(f )(1)(C)  and  (f )(3)  (2017)  (allowing  parties  to  agree  to 
a  binding  sentence).    Thus,  the  judge  could  impose  no
sentence  other  than  the  10  years  for  which  Garza  had 

—————— 

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25, 37–38 (1970) (permitting
courts  to  accept  guilty  pleas  where  defendants  admit  that  there  is  a 
factual basis for the plea, but do not admit actual guilt). 

2 The majority questions the  validity  of Garza’s appellate waivers by 
suggesting  that  “Garza  may  have  been  confused  as  to  whether  he had 
waived his appellate rights in the first place.”  Ante, at 2, n. 1.  I read 
the record differently.  It is true that, in the guilty form related to his 
possession  charge,  Garza  checked  “no”  as  to  whether  he  was  waiving
his  appeal  rights.    But,  in  the  guilty  form  related  to  his  aggravated-
assault  charge,  he  checked  “yes”  to  waiving  his  appeal  rights.    And  at 
the plea hearing for that offense, he acknowledged under oath that he 
understood all the questions, had received enough time with the guilty 
form,  and  answered  each  question  honestly.    He  also  acknowledged at 
the sentencing hearing for both offenses that he would be “go[ing] away
for  ten  years,”  as  negotiated  for  in  the  signed  plea  agreements  that 
included  the  appeal  waivers.    Record  131.    Finally,  the  trial  court  in
postconviction  proceedings  concluded  that  Garza  had  never  contended 
“at any stage of these post-conviction cases” that “he did not appreciate
or  understand  the  appeal  waivers  when  he  entered  his  pleas.”  Id., 
at 185.