Document: 528 U.S. 470120 S.Ct. 1029145 L.Ed.2d 985 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROE, WARDENv.FLORES-ORTEGA CERTIORARI TO STATESCOURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT No. 98 1441.Argued November 1, 1999Decided February 23, 2000 Respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. At his sentencing, trial judge advised him that he had 60 days file an appeal. His counsel, Ms. Kops, wrote "bring appeal papers" her file, notice was filed within time. Respondent's subsequent attempt such rejected untimely, and efforts secure state habeas relief were unsuccessful. He then federal petition, alleging constitutionally ineffective assistance counsel based on Kops' failure after promising do so. District denied relief. Ninth Circuit reversed, however, finding respondent entitled because, under its precedent, petitioner need only show counsel's without petitioner's consent. Held: 1. Strickland Washington, 466 668, provides proper framework evaluating claim failing Under Strickland, defendant must (1) counsel'srepresentation "fell below objective standard reasonableness," id., 688, (2) deficient performance prejudiced defendant, 694. Pp. 4 15. (a) Courts "judge reasonableness conduct facts particular viewed conduct," U.S., 690, "[j]udicial scrutiny highly deferential," 689. A lawyer who disregards defendant's specific instructions acts professionally unreasonable manner, see Rodriquez States, 395 327, while explicitly tells attorney not plainly cannot later complain that, following those instructions, performed deficiently, Jones Barnes, 463 745, 751. adopted bright-line rule cases where clearly conveyed wishes one way or other; view, consent per se deficient. rejects inconsistent Strickland's circumstance-specific requirement. question whether deficiently best answered first asking fact consulted about By "consult," means advising advantages disadvantages taking making reasonable effort discover wishes. Counsel consults performs manner follow express If consulted, court ask itself performance. better practice routinely consult imposed duty consult, when there reason think either rational would want appeal, reasonably demonstrated interested appealing. In determination, courts take into account all information knew should have known. One relevant factor conviction follows plea, because plea both reduces scope potentially appealable issues may indicate seeks end judicial proceedings. Even then, consider factors received sentence bargained expressly reserved waived some rights. 5 9. (b) second test requires prejudice from involves during course legal proceeding, normally applies strong presumption reliability requiring overcome demonstrating errors actually adverse effect defense. complete denial critical stage mandates "the adversary process itself" rendered "presumptively unreliable." Cronic, 648, 659. even more serious entire proceeding also demands can accorded proceedings never took place. claims led forfeiture so, presumed. Because deprived demonstrate probability timely appealed. This pattern established mirrors inquiry applied Hill Lockhart, 474 52, 327. made requisite showing turn case. Nonetheless, evidence nonfrivolous grounds promptly expressed desire often determination. inquiries overlap satisfied if shows However, they are coextensive. Evidence sufficiently interest prove performance, alone insufficient establish advice. And, although give weight contention appealed, inability merit hypothetical foreclose possibility meet requirement other substantial reasons believe 10 2. undertook neither record does provide sufficientinformation determine Kops inadequate assistance. case accordingly remanded fora determination (either potential appealor appealing), she obligations, and, did not, whetherrespondent thereby. 15 16. 160 F.3d 534, vacated remanded. O'Connor, J., delivered Court, which Rehnquist, C. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, JJ., joined, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, joined Part II B. concurring opinion. dissenting part, Stevens joined. part. Opinion 1 NOTICE: subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Supreme D. 20543, any typographical errors, order corrections goes press. 1441 2 ERNEST WARDEN, PETITIONERv.LUCIO FLORES-ORTEGA 3 ON WRIT Justice O'Connor Court. we decide claim, respondent's 6 * State California charged respondent, Lucio Flores-Ortega, count murder, two counts assault, personal use deadly weapon enhancement allegation. October 1993, appeared Superior court-appointed public defender, Nancy Spanish language interpreter, entered pursuant permitting deny committing crime admit sufficient convict him. People West, Cal. 3d 595, 477 P.2d 409 (1970). exchange prosecutor moved strike allegation dismiss assault charges. On 10, sentenced years life prison. After pronouncing sentence, informed "You fromtoday's date you money Counsel, appointed represent your appeal." App. 40. 7 Although allowed law. Penal Code §1239(a) (West Supp. 2000); Appellate Rule 31(d). (A generally one-sentence document stating judgment. 31(b); Judicial Council California, Approved Form CR 120 (Notice Appeal Felony) (Jan. 5, 2000), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi bin/forms/.cgi.) Filing purely ministerial task imposes great burden counsel. During 90 apparently lockup, undergoing evaluation, unable communicate About four months March 24, 1994, tried Clerk untimely. sought California's appellate courts, challenging validity conviction, (before Court) promised. These uniformly 8 petition 28 U.S.C. § 2254 behalf Eastern referred matter Magistrate Judge, ordered evidentiary hearing limited issue promised behalf. conclusion hearing, Judge found: 9 "The is, I think, quite clear [a appeal]. . 11 "It's me Mr. Ortega little understanding what was, meant game. 12 "I conversation [between Kops] jail. testified, I'm sure he's testifying belief, pronouncement judgment sentencing it's going 13 "She recollection that. obviously extremely experienced defense She's very meticulous person. And 14 "But, find carried preponderance promise." 132 133. acknowledged precedent Appeals Circuit, Stearns, 68 328 (1995), concluded, Stearns announced new could retroactively collateral review Teague Lane, 489 288 (1989). Thus, recommended denied. 161. Magistrate's findings recommendation, Id., 162 163. 16 reasoning tracked earlier Lozada Deeds, 964 F.2d 956 (1992), predated conviction. 534 (1998). thus qualified conditional writ unless We granted certiorari, 526 1097 (1999), resolve conflict lower regarding obligations Compare Tajeddini, 945 458, 468 (CA1 1991) (per curiam) (counsel's allegedly knowledge consent, performance); Morales 143 94, 97 (CA2 1998) (counsel defendant); Ludwig 456, 459 (CA6 (Constitution implicated requests request); Castellanos 26 717, 719 720 (CA7 1994) (same); Romero Tansy, 46 1024, 1030 1031 (CA10 1995) (defendant intent obligated perfect appeal; right, advise right); supra, consents abandonment appeal). 17 668 (1984), held criminal defendants Sixth Amendment right "reasonably effective" assistance, 687, now-familiar test: claiming representation Today hold claims, like respondent's, 18 As previously noted, "[n]o set detailed rules satisfactorily variety circumstances faced counsel." 688 Rather, 19 long unreasonable. 327 (1969); cf. Peguero (1999) ("[W]hen fails new] likely merit"). so instructs initiate reasona- bly relies upon necessary notice. Counsel's considered strategic decision; filing task, reflects inattention spectrum, deficiently. 751 (1983) (accused ultimate authority make fundamental decision presented lies between poles: Is other? 20 First Circuits rule: specifically otherwise; See, e.g., F.3d, 330; Lozada, 958; 468. Such effectively obligation discuss ascertain wishes, act accordingly. reject holding considering circumstances." 688. failed engage required vacatur remand. 21 nor asks taken, separate, antecedent, question: employ term "consult" convey meaning easily answered: respect 5-6. second, subsidiary, That heart case: appeal? 22 rests agree Souter ABA Standards Criminal Justice, Defense Function §4 8.2(a) (3d. ed. 1993); post, 4. fact, Ann. §1240.1(a) 2000). "[p]revailing norms reflected American Bar Association standards guides," imposing "specific guidelines" "not appropriate." free impose whatever fit ensure well represented, Federal Constitution general requirement: objectively choices. say, constitutional matter, every necessarily unreasonable, therefore our common sense. 689 (rejecting mechanistic governing do). For example, suppose counsel; advises probably lead year sentence; expresses satisfaction pleads guilty; sentences years' imprisonment expected informs rights; appealing, concludes these circumstances, difficult say "professionally unreasonable," 691, consulting Or, court's rights informative substitute consult. cases, might repeat information. always 23 instead constitutionally-imposed (for appeal), 690 (focusing totality circumstances). determinative, guilty, Only given properly desired 24 Rather than announce today, us "almost" "almost always" Post, recognizes "detailed conduct" place inquiry, argues "qualification" application here. According choices lawyers, choice. 4-5. But consistently declined mechanical simply out deference choices, purpose effective guarantee improve quality [but rather] receive fair trial." strategic, reasonable. id, fell reasonableness). expect using described find, vast majority differ refuse (or se) matter. B 25 most 699 (claim poor argue hearing); 649 650 (1984) young incompetent defend complex case); Penson Ohio, 488 75, 88 89 (1988) appeal); Smith Robbins, ___ (2000) neglected merits brief Murray, 527, 535 536 (1986) argument require actual "a unprofessional result different," 694 presume turns magnitude deprivation recognized own sake, ability accused trial," 658, Penson, 89. "Absent challenged process, [effective counsel] implicated." 658. 27 "normally apply 'strong reliability' presumption," (slip op., 24) (citing 696), "show[ing] how undermined guilt." 659, n. 26. involving mere "attorney error," "actually defense." 693. 25) (applying followed procedures alleged missed argument); 700 introduce altered sentence). alleges representation, rather constructively altogether. essential conclude unfair stage." same true 88. [is] required," presumptively 659; ("denial altogether warrants prejudice"); (complete prejudice). 29 Today's unusual arguably disputed reliability, itself. hence, Assuming allegations true, proceeding; deficiency " itself, wanted similarly prejudice. Put simply, accord 'presumption reliability,' Robbins 24), 30 rule, solely standard. 536. Unfortunately, ignores cause anything, Cf. rights, full chose so). Accordingly, 31 adopting standard, reaffirmed (i.e., prevailed) reliable, presuming further underlying violation unreliable entirely nonexistent. 493 496; 658 24-25). Today, drawing line suggestion Solicitor General, deprives otherwise successful entitling 32 breaks ground, 52 (1985), (1969). Hill, advice consequences entering plea. Like plead waive trial) rested caused forfeit entitled. "to satisfy 'prejudice' [of Strickland], insisted 59. Similarly, Rodriquez, despite instructed 328. instructing indicated showing. "[t]hose whose frustrated treated exactly appellan[t]," would-be appellant "specify points raise reinstated." 330. Evitts Lucey, 469 387 (1985) comply local dismissal 33 applications test, 695 696. recognize wholly dissimilar used place; specifically, 59 (when, gives valid affirmative defense, depends largely succeeded, leading insist trial). But, prongs overlap, To rely 34 token, reinstated," 330, ibid.; Peguero, (O'Connor, concurring) ("To specify their heavy pro initial [habeas] motion"). here indigent, perhaps se, advocate ever reviewed search meritorious conduct, III 35 described, presumed respondent. finds "derelict," presumably believes Judge's Specifically, suggest 133; (Ms. 'bring papers' file), said. Assuming, arguendo, impossible knowing 691 ("inquiry conversations assessment decisions"). Based us, vacated, consistent 36 It ordered. 37 concurring. 38 write emphasize concerned "notice plea." Pet. Cert. i (emphasis added). context join opinion, which, my makes trial. (Souter, part); ante, 39 J. 40 whom Ginsburg join, 41 Court's respectfully dissent A. says, crucial whether, client choice majority's sometimes; mine almost error.1 Flores-Ortega walk away least acting affirmatively understands 42 available seek forgo himself, lawyer, (1983), owes stage, 387, 396 (1985); 85 (1988). follows, notes, more, purposes. lesser infidelity fail competence governs derelict character clearer realizes. 43 noted important decisions prosecution." decision. Since intelligently appreciating possible seeking review, concurring); 330 (1969), risks appealing lay needs help deciding. minor, simple, sophisticated, 5-minute suffice; charge serious, subtle, uneducated, hours counseling order. extraordinary whatever. 44 extent attention directed statements "prevailing professional norms," (Strickland's touchstone ibid.), sense 2.2(b) (2d 1980): 45 "Defense judgment, probable outcome posttrial pursued concurrent While needed inform choice." (3d 1993) (stating "should explain appeal" results appeal"); 8.2, Commentary ("[C]ounsel [has duty] frankly matters deciding meaningful one, evaluation communicated comprehensible [T]rial careful appraisal prospects 3.2(b)(i). 47 So Model Professional Responsibility, EC (1991), provides: "Trial convicted continue ." Likewise Conduct 1.3, Comment (1996): "[I]f handled administrative produced concerning pursuit relinquishing responsibility matter." Restatement (Third) Law Governing Lawyers §31(3) (Proposed Final Draft Mar. 29, 1996) embodies standards: "A permit representation." Indeed, eliminated option lawyer's (whether negligent intentional). 2000) "provide exist reversal modification appears unconditional binding through standards. understand guides determining reasonable, range legitimate defendant." qualification 48 disclaimer dispositive respects defer "strategic choices" concerns arise Strategic investigation, testimony exposure cross-examination, placing background jury backfire, on. "strategy" loses chance sentence. concern too much second-guessing raised counseled intelligent invoke opportunity 49 position less explicable considers condition spoke English sophistication ways system. found "[i]t's meant." inter alia, appeal)," 8, harmless-error reality norm address.2 Most defendants, certainly utterly incapable judgments guidance. They possibly know decisionmaker benefit chances success trying. (indeed, usually) just bad off direct having postconviction Pennsylvania Finley, 481 551, 557 (1987); Murray Giarratano, 492 (1989); 2255 50 effect, today's erodes principle validly doing. Now inadvertently utters word "appeal" client's (probably counsel) unwittingly "nonfrivolous grounds" review. law amounts breakdown system warned against. "In adversarial produce results." 696; 85. 51 aftermath sentenced, obliged availability prudence violated reasonableness. 53 presents convicted, permits away, leaving uncounseled deeply divided question. Both respond: hardly ever. articulated guidance plain Souter's Notes 54 always, recognizing beyond margin: legally trained error-free open-and-shut options. Nor colloquy fully explains obviate same; exists furthest reach theory, ___, 6) dissenting). Finally, course, agreement; argued different sentences, irrelevant disposition 55 holds present "this appealing." Ante, 8. unsophisticated ones unaware means, demonstration practical impossibility, view virtually existence issue.

Category: 0