Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

his  damaging  testimony  from  the  record.    Nor  can  a  de-
fendant waive his right to a jury trial, and then later claim
prejudice when his attorney declines to seek a mistrial on
the ground  that the judge found him guilty.  In the same 
way, Garza was not prejudiced by his attorney’s refusal to
file an appeal challenging his sentence, a right that he had 
expressly  waived.  The  lack  of  prejudice  is  especially  pro-
nounced  in this  case,  as Garza’s instruction to appeal did 
not  acknowledge  that  he  wanted  to  challenge  or  rescind 
the plea agreements. 

C 
There  is  no  persuasive  reason  to  depart  from  an  ordi-
nary  Strickland  analysis  in  cases  involving  an  attorney’s 
decision  to  honor  his  client’s  agreement  to  waive  his  ap-
peal  rights.  Garza  contends  that  it  is  unfair  to  require 
pro se  defendants  to  identify  the  issues  they  would  have 
raised  on  appeal.    But  pro se  defendants  always  bear  the 
burden  of  showing  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel;  I  see 
no  reason  why  this  kind  of  ineffective-assistance  claim 
should  be  any  different.    Regardless,  Garza’s  fairness 
argument rings hollow because Garza has been represented 
by  counsel  at  every  stage  of  this  collateral  litigation  and 
has  yet  to  articulate  a  single  nonfrivolous,  nonwaived 
issue that he would have raised on appeal.  His inability to
identify  any  issues  that  he  preserved  simply  underscores 
the fact that he waived them all. 

The Court’s rule may be easy to “administ[er],” ante, at 
13, but it undermines the finality of criminal judgments—
a primary purpose of plea agreements—and disadvantages
the public by allowing defendants to relitigate issues that 
they  waived  in  exchange  for  substantial  benefits.  The 
Court’s  rule  also  burdens  the  appellate  courts  that  must 
address  the  new,  meritless  appeals  authorized  by  today’s
decision.  And,  ironically,  the  Court’s  rule  may  prejudice
the  defendants  it  is  designed  to  help,  as  prosecutors  may