Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. State, 405 P.3d 576

Garza entered two binding Rule 11 plea agreements (Alford plea for aggravated assault; guilty plea for possession with intent to deliver) that included waivers of the right to appeal and to seek Rule 35 relief. Sentences were imposed per the bargains and were consecutive.
Garza later claimed he asked his trial attorney to file appeals despite the appeal waivers; counsel declined, citing the waivers and that Garza received the bargained-for sentences.
Garza filed separate petitions for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file notices of appeal.
The district court dismissed all claims except the failure-to-appeal ineffective-assistance claim, then granted summary disposition dismissing that claim on the basis that Garza could not show nonfrivolous grounds for appeal or resulting prejudice.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Idaho Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding that when a defendant validly waives appellate rights in a plea agreement, counsel is not presumed ineffective for declining to file an appeal and the Strickland deficient-performance/prejudice test applies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for refusing to file an appeal after client requested one despite a plea agreement waiver	Garza: counsel was ineffective; the court should presume deficiency and prejudice under Flores-Ortega because counsel deprived him of the opportunity to appeal	State: waiver eliminated the right to appeal; counsel reasonably declined to file to avoid frivolous litigation and to preserve the plea bargain; no presumption of prejudice	Court: No presumption. When appeal rights are validly waived, applicant must prove deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland; Garza failed to show nonfrivolous grounds or prejudice, so dismissal affirmed

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (attorney’s failure to file requested appeal can be ineffective assistance; presumes prejudice where defendant was deprived of an appeal he had a right to take)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Murphy, 125 Idaho 456 (1994) (Idaho permits appellate-waiver in plea agreements if knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that Flores-Ortega does not create a presumption of deficiency/prejudice where defendant validly waived appeal rights)
United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2005) (majority rule that counsel must file requested appeals despite waivers; expresses policy concerns about futility)
McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286 (2017) (Idaho Supreme Court applied Flores-Ortega principles in the failure-to-consult context and refused to adopt a bright-line presumption of deficiency)