Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

10 

GARZA v. IDAHO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

2 
As for prejudice, Garza cannot benefit from a presumed-
prejudice  finding  since  he  cannot  establish  that  his  coun-
sel  caused  the  forfeiture  of  his  appeal,  as  Flores-Ortega 
requires.  Garza  knowingly  and  voluntarily  bargained 
away his right to appeal in exchange for a lower sentence. 
If  any  prejudice  resulted  from  that  decision,  it  cannot  be
attributed to his counsel. 

It  does  not  matter  that  certain  appellate  issues—
specifically,  (1)  the  voluntariness  of  the  plea  agreement
and  (2)  a  breach  of  the  agreement  by  the  State—are  not 
waivable.  Garza  did  not  ask  his  counsel  to  appeal  those 
issues.    In  fact,  Garza  has  not  identified  any  nonwaived 
issue  that  he  would  have  brought  on  direct  appeal;  he
simply identified “sentencing review” as his primary objec-
tive.  Moreover,  declining  to  file  an  appeal  raising  these
nonwaivable claims is unlikely to be prejudicial; this Court 
has  repeatedly  stated  that  collateral  review  is  a  better 
avenue 
ineffective-
assistance  claims,  as  these  claims  often  require  extra-
record  materials  and  present  conflicts  with  counsel.    See 
generally Massaro v. United States, 538 U. S. 500 (2003).

involuntariness  and 

to  address 

The  Court’s  decision  in  McCoy  v.  Louisiana,  584  U. S. 
___ (2018), does not change the analysis.  McCoy acknowl-
edges  that  some  decisions  are  “reserved  for  the  client,”
including the decision whether to “forgo an appeal.”  Id., at 
___ (slip op., at 6).  But Garza exercised his right to decide 
whether  to  appeal.    He  chose  not  to  when  he  entered  the 
plea agreements.  Like many constitutional and statutory 
rights, the right to appeal can be waived by the defendant,
and  once  that  choice  is  finally  made,  the  defendant  is 
bound by the decision and cannot fault his attorney for the
self-inflicted  prejudicial  effects  that  he  suffers.    For  in-
stance,  a  defendant  cannot  waive  his  right  against  self-
incrimination  by  testifying  at  his  trial,  and  then  claim 
that  his  attorney  prejudiced  him  by  not  moving  to  strike