Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

GARZA v. IDAHO 

Opinion of the Court 

was denied that proceeding altogether as a result of coun-
sel’s deficient performance. 

That  Garza  surrendered  many  claims  by  signing  his
appeal  waivers  does  not  change  things.    First,  this  Court 
has made clear that when deficient counsel causes the loss 
of an entire proceeding, it will not bend the presumption-
of-prejudice  rule  simply  because  a  particular  defendant
seems  to  have  had  poor  prospects.    See,  e.g.,  Jae  Lee  v. 
United States, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 9).  We 
hew to that principle again here.

Second,  while  the  defendant  in  Flores-Ortega  did  not 
sign  an  appeal  waiver,  he  did  plead  guilty,  and—as  the 
Court  pointed  out—“a  guilty  plea  reduces  the  scope  of 
potentially  appealable  issues”  on  its  own.    See  528  U. S., 
at  480.  In  other  words,  with  regard  to  the  defendant’s 
appellate  prospects,  Flores-Ortega  presented  at  most  a
difference  of  degree,  not  kind,  and  prescribed  a  presump-
tion of prejudice regardless of how many appellate claims 
were foreclosed.  See id., at 484.  We do no different today.
Instead, we reaffirm that, “when  counsel’s constitution-
ally  deficient  performance  deprives  a  defendant  of  an
appeal that he otherwise would have taken, the defendant
has made out a successful ineffective assistance of counsel 
claim entitling him to an appeal,” with no need for a “fur-
ther  showing”  of  his  claims’  merit,  ibid.,  regardless  of
whether the defendant has signed an appeal waiver. 

III 

Flores-Ortega states, in one sentence, that the loss of the 
“entire  [appellate]  proceeding  itself,  which  a  defendant
wanted  at  the  time  and  to  which  he  had  a  right,  . . .  de-
mands a presumption of prejudice.”  Id., at 483.  Idaho and 
the  U. S.  Government,  participating  as  an  amicus  on 
Idaho’s  behalf,  seize  on  this  language,  asserting  that 
Garza never “had a right” to his appeal and thus that any 
deficient  performance  by  counsel  could  not  have  caused