Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

ment also proposes a rule that would require a defendant to show— 
on  a  case-by-case  basis—that  he  would  have  presented  claims  that 
would  have  been  considered  by  the  appellate  court  on  the  merits.
This  Court,  however,  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.  See, e.g., Ro-
driquez v. United States, 395 U. S. 327, 330.  Moreover, it is not the 
defendant’s  role  to  decide  what  arguments  to  press,  making  it  espe-
cially  improper  to  impose  that  role  upon  the  defendant  simply  be-
cause  his  opportunity  to  appeal  was  relinquished  by  deficient  coun-
sel.  And  because  there  is  no  right  to  counsel  in  postconviction 
proceedings  and,  thus,  most  applicants  proceed  pro  se,  the  Govern-
ment’s  proposal  would  be  unfair,  ill  advised,  and  unworkable. 
Pp. 10–14. 

162 Idaho 791, 405 P. 3d 576, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  GINSBURG,  BREYER,  KAGAN,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined, and 
in which ALITO, J., joined as to Parts I and II.