Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 29

12 

GARZA v. IDAHO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

understandably  be  less  willing  to  offer  generous  plea
agreements  when  courts  refuse  to  afford  the  government
the benefit of its bargain—fewer resources spent defending
appeals.

Finally, because Garza’s requested relief is categorically
barred  by  the  plea  agreements,  the  majority  offers  Garza 
an  appeal he  is  certain  to  lose.   And  should  Garza  accept 
the majority’s invitation, he could  give up much more.  If 
Garza appeals his sentence and thereby breaches his plea
agreements,  Idaho  will  be  free  to  file  additional  charges
against  him,  argue  for  a  “Persistent  violator”  sentencing 
enhancement  that  could  land  him  in  prison  for  life,  and 
refer him for federal prosecution.  It simply defies logic to 
describe counsel’s attempt to avoid those consequences as 
deficient or prejudicial. 

III 
In  addition  to  breaking  from  this  Court’s  precedent,
today’s  decision  moves  the  Court  another  step  further
from the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment.  The 
Sixth Amendment provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecu-
tions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  . . .  to  have  the 
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  That provision “as
originally  understood  and  ratified  meant  only  that  a  de-
fendant  had  a  right  to  employ  counsel,  or  to  use  volun-
teered services of counsel.”  Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 
356, 389 (2010) (Scalia, J., dissenting).  Yet, the Court has 
read the Constitution to require not only a right to counsel 
at taxpayers’ expense, but a right to effective counsel.  The 
result is that convicted criminals can relitigate their trial 
and  appellate  claims 
through  collateral  challenges
couched  as  ineffective-assistance-of-counsel  claims.  Be-
cause little available evidence suggests that this reading is
correct  as  an  original  matter,  the  Court  should  tread
carefully before extending our precedents in this area.