Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

nonsubstantive.7 

A  notice  of  appeal  also  fits  within  a  broader  division  of 
labor between defendants and their attorneys.  While “the 
accused  has  the  ultimate  authority”  to  decide  whether  to 
“take an appeal,” the choice of what specific arguments to
make  within  that  appeal  belongs  to  appellate  counsel. 
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745, 751 (1983); see also McCoy 
v.  Louisiana,  584  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018)  (slip  op.,  at  6).    In 
other  words,  filing  a  notice  of  appeal  is,  generally  speak-
ing,  a  simple,  nonsubstantive  act  that  is  within  the  de-
fendant’s prerogative. 

C 
With  that  context  in  mind,  we  turn  to  the  precise  legal 
issues  here.  As  an  initial  matter,  we  note  that  Garza’s 
attorney  rendered  deficient  performance  by  not  filing  the 
notice of appeal in light of Garza’s clear requests.  As this 
Court explained in Flores-Ortega: 

“We  have  long  held  that  a  lawyer  who  disregards 
specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice 
of  appeal  acts  in  a  manner  that  is  professionally  un-
reasonable.    This  is  so  because  a  defendant  who  in-
structs counsel to initiate an appeal reasonably relies 
upon  counsel  to  file  the  necessary  notice.    Counsel’s 
failure to do so cannot be considered a strategic deci-
sion;  filing  a  notice  of  appeal  is  a  purely  ministerial
task, and the failure to file reflects inattention to the 
defendant’s wishes.”  528 U. S., at 477 (citations omit-
ted); see also id., at 478. 

—————— 

7 E.g.,  Miss.  Rule  Crim.  Proc.  29.1(b)  (2017);  Ohio  Rule  App.  Proc. 
3(D) (Lexis 2017).  While Idaho requires a notice of appeal to  “contain 
substantially  . . .  [a]  preliminary  statement  of  the  issues  on  appeal 
which  the  appellant  then  intends  to  assert  in  the  appeal,”  the  Rule  in 
question also  makes clear that “any such list of issues  on appeal  shall
not prevent the appellant from asserting other issues on appeal.”  Idaho 
Rule App. Proc. 17(f ).