Garza v. Idaho
| Garza v. Idaho | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 30, 2018 Decided February 27, 2019 | |
| Full case name | Gilberto Garza Jr., Petitioner, v. State of Idaho, Respondent. |
| Docket no. | 17-1026 |
| Citations | 586 U.S. ___ (more) 139 S. Ct. 738 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| The presumption of prejudice as recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch; Alito (Parts I and II) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. VI | |
Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal.[1]
Background[edit]
In 2015, petitioner Gilberto Garza, Jr. signed two plea agreements which required him to waive his right to appeal.[2] After sentencing, Garza informed his trial counsel of his wish to appeal. Due to the appeal waivers signed by Garza, counsel declined to file a notice of appeal. After the time period to file an appeal lapsed, Garza filed a petition for state post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the presumption of prejudice as recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega does not apply when the defendant has agreed to waive the right to appeal.
Opinion[edit]
Amir Ali presented oral argument for Garza before the Supreme Court, with Ken Jorgensen and Alon Kedem representing the State of Idaho and United States, respectively. The Court announced its judgment in favor of the petitioner on February 27, 2019, with the court reversing and remanding by a vote of 6–3.[3]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The majority opinion, written by Sotomayor and joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, held that Garza's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and such deficiency was prejudicial to the defense.
Dissent[edit]
Justice Thomas, joined by Gorsuch and joined in part by Alito, filed a dissenting opinion which held that the defense acted reasonably by refusing to file an appeal. The dissent argued that the majority's opinion creates a "defendant-always-wins" rule that has no basis in previous case law or the Sixth Amendment. Part III of Thomas' dissent, joined by Gorsuch but not Alito, suggests the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright (1963, guaranteeing poor defendants a right to a lawyer in state criminal cases) was wrongly decided and should be overruled.[4]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ Davlin, Melissa (February 28, 2019). "US Supreme Court sides with inmate on appeals case, overturning Idaho court's ruling". Idaho Statesman. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
- ^ Neily, Clark; Schweikert, Jay. "Garza v. Idaho". Cato Institute. Archived from the original on October 24, 2019. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
- ^ Garza v. Idaho, No. 17-1026, 586 U.S. ___ (2018).
- ^ Liptak, Adam (March 4, 2019). "Precedent, Meet Clarence Thomas. You May Not Get Along". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 16, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
External links[edit]
Text of Garza v. Idaho 586 U.S. ___ (2019) is available from: Cornell Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)