Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

ple, 8 of the 10 Federal Courts of Appeals to have consid-
ered  the  question  have  applied  Flores-Ortega’s  presump-
tion  of  prejudice  even  when  a  defendant  has  signed  an
appeal waiver.3  162 Idaho, at 795, 405 P. 3d, at 580. 

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  the  split  of  authority.

585 U. S. ___ (2018).  We now reverse. 

II 
A 
The  Sixth  Amendment  guarantees  criminal  defendants
“the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for [their] 
defence.”  The  right  to  counsel  includes  “ ‘the  right  to  the 
effective  assistance  of  counsel.’ ”    Strickland  v.  Washing-
ton,  466  U. S.  668,  686  (1984)  (quoting  McMann  v.  Rich-
ardson,  397  U. S.  759,  771,  n.  14  (1970)).    Under  Strick-
land,  a  defendant  who  claims  ineffective  assistance  of 
counsel  must  prove  (1)  “that  counsel’s  representation  fell 
below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 466 U. S., 
at 687–688, and (2) that any such deficiency was “prejudi-
cial to the defense,” id., at 692. 

“In certain Sixth Amendment contexts,” however, “prej-
udice  is  presumed.”  Ibid.   For  example,  no  showing  of
prejudice is necessary “if the accused is denied counsel at
a  critical  stage  of  his  trial,”  United  States  v.  Cronic,  466 
—————— 

3 Compare Campbell v. United States, 686 F. 3d 353, 359 (CA6 2012); 
Watson v. United States, 493 F. 3d 960, 964 (CA8 2007); United States 
v.  Poindexter,  492  F. 3d  263,  273  (CA4  2007);  United  States  v.  Tapp, 
491 F. 3d 263, 266 (CA5 2007); Campusano v. United States, 442 F. 3d 
770, 775 (CA2 2006); Gomez-Diaz v. United States, 433 F. 3d 788, 791– 
794  (CA11  2005);  United  States  v.  Sandoval-Lopez,  409  F. 3d  1193, 
1195–1199 (CA9 2005); United States v. Garrett, 402 F. 3d 1262, 1266– 
1267  (CA10  2005),  with  Nunez  v.  United  States,  546  F. 3d  450,  455 
(CA7 2008); United States v. Mabry, 536 F. 3d 231, 241 (CA3 2008).  At 
least two state courts have declined to apply Flores-Ortega in the face of 
appeal  waivers.    See  Buettner  v.  State,  382  Mont.  410,  363  P. 3d  1147 
(2015) (Table); Stewart v. United States, 37 A. 3d 870, 877 (D. C. 2012); 
see  also  Kargus  v.  State,  284  Kan.  908,  922,  928,  169  P. 3d  307,  316, 
320 (2007).