Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

the loss of any such appeal.  See Brief for Respondent 11,
23–26; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 7, 13, 21– 
22.  These arguments  miss the point.  Garza  did retain  a 
right  to  his  appeal;  he  simply  had  fewer  possible  claims 
than  some  other  appellants.  Especially  because  so  much
is unknown at the notice-of-appeal stage, see supra, at 6– 
7,  it  is  wholly  speculative  to  say  that  counsel’s  deficiency 
forfeits no proceeding to which a defendant like Garza has
a right.11 

The Government also takes its causation argument one 
step  further.  Arguing  that,  in  the  appeal-waiver  context,
“a generalized request that an attorney file an appeal . . . 
is not enough to show that appellate merits review would 
have  followed,”  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae 
22,  the  Government  proposes  a  rule  that  would  require  a 
defendant to show—on a “case-specific” basis,  id., at 23— 
either (1) “that he in fact requested, or at least expressed 
interest  in,  an  appeal  on  a  non-waived  issue,”  id.,  at  21– 
22,  or  alternatively  (2)  “ ‘that  there  were  nonfrivolous 
grounds for appeal’ despite the waiver,” id., at 22 (quoting 
Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S., at 485).  We decline this sugges-
tion, because it cannot be squared with our precedent and 
would likely prove both unfair and inefficient in practice.

This  Court  has  already  rejected  attempts  to  condition 
the  restoration  of  a  defendant’s  appellate  rights  forfeited
by ineffective counsel on proof that the defendant’s appeal 
had  merit. 
In  Flores-Ortega,  the  Court  explained  that 
prejudice  should  be  presumed  “with  no  further  showing
from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims.” 

—————— 

11 The  possibility  that  an  appellate  court  confronted  with  a  waived 
claim  (and  a  motion  to  enforce  the  waiver)  would  technically  “dismiss
the appeal without reaching the merits,” see Brief for United States as 
Amicus Curiae 17; see also Brief for Respondent 26, does not alter this 
conclusion.  Whatever the label, the defendant loses the opportunity to 
raise  any  appellate  claims  at  all—including  those  that  would,  or  at 
least could, be heard on the merits.