Roe v Flores-Ortega

Decision Date23 February 2000
Docket Number981441
PartiesSyllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROE, WARDEN v.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT1441
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ROE, WARDEN

v.

FLORES-ORTEGA

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 98 1441.

Argued November 1, 1999

Decided February 23, 2000

Respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. At his sentencing, the trial judge advised him that he had 60 days to file an appeal. His counsel, Ms. Kops, wrote "bring appeal papers" in her file, but no notice of appeal was filed within that time. Respondent's subsequent attempt to file such notice was rejected as untimely, and his efforts to secure state habeas relief were unsuccessful. He then filed a federal habeas petition, alleging constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel based on Ms. Kops' failure to file the notice after promising to do so. The District Court denied relief. The Ninth Circuit reversed, however, finding that respondent was entitled to relief because, under its precedent, a habeas petitioner need only show that his counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal was without the petitioner's consent.

Held:

1. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, provides the proper framework for evaluating a claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. Under Strickland, a defendant must show (1) that counsel'srepresentation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," id., at 688, and (2) that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant, id., at 694. Pp. 4 15.

(a) Courts must "judge the reasonableness of counsel's conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct," 466 U.S., at 690, and "[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential," id., at 689. A lawyer who disregards a defendant's specific instructions to file a notice of appeal acts in a professionally unreasonable manner, see Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, while a defendant who explicitly tells his attorney not to file an appeal plainly cannot later complain that, by following those instructions, his counsel performed deficiently, see Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751. The Ninth Circuit adopted a bright-line rule for cases where the defendant has not clearly conveyed his wishes one way or the other; in its view, failing to file a notice of appeal without the defendant's consent is per se deficient. The Court rejects that per se rule as inconsistent with Strickland's circumstance-specific reasonableness requirement. The question whether counsel has performed deficiently in such cases is best answered by first asking whether counsel in fact consulted with the defendant about an appeal. By "consult," the Court means advising the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal and making a reasonable effort to discover the defendant's wishes. Counsel who consults with the defendant performs in a professionally unreasonable manner only by failing to follow the defendant's express instructions about an appeal. If counsel has not consulted, the court must ask whether that failure itself constitutes deficient performance. The better practice is for counsel routinely to consult with the defendant about an appeal. Counsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult, however, only when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal, or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing. In making this determination, courts must take into account all the information counsel knew or should have known. One highly relevant factor will be whether the conviction follows a trial or a guilty plea, because a plea both reduces the scope of potentially appealable issues and may indicate that the defendant seeks an end to judicial proceedings. Even then, a court must consider such factors as whether the defendant received the sentence bargained for and whether the plea expressly reserved or waived some or all appeal rights. Pp. 5 9.

(b) The second part of the Strickland test requires the defendant to show prejudice from counsel's deficient performance. Where an ineffective assistance of counsel claim involves counsel's performance during the course of a legal proceeding, the Court normally applies a strong presumption of reliability to the proceeding, requiring a defendant to overcome that presumption by demonstrating that attorney errors actually had an adverse effect on the defense. The complete denial of counsel during a critical stage of a judicial proceeding, however, mandates a presumption of prejudice because "the adversary process itself" has been rendered "presumptively unreliable." United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659. The even more serious denial of the entire judicial proceeding also demands a presumption of prejudice because no presumption of reliability can be accorded to judicial proceedings that never took place. Respondent claims that his counsel's deficient performance led to the forfeiture of his appeal. If that is so, prejudice must be presumed. Because the defendant in such cases must show that counsel's deficient performance actually deprived him of an appeal, however, he must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient failure to consult with him about an appeal, he would have timely appealed. This standard follows the pattern established in Strickland and Cronic, and mirrors the prejudice inquiry applied in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, and Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327. The question whether a defendant has made the requisite showing will turn on the facts of the particular case. Nonetheless, evidence that there were nonfrivolous grounds for appeal or that the defendant promptly expressed a desire to appeal will often be highly relevant in making this determination. The performance and prejudice inquiries may overlap because both may be satisfied if the defendant shows nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. However, they are not in all cases coextensive. Evidence that a defendant sufficiently demonstrated to counsel his interest in an appeal may prove deficient performance, but it alone is insufficient to establish that he would have filed the appeal had he received counsel's advice. And, although showing nonfrivolous grounds for appeal may give weight to the defendant's contention that he would have appealed, a defendant's inability to demonstrate the merit of his hypothetical appeal will not foreclose the possibility that he can meet the prejudice requirement where there are other substantial reasons to believe that he would have appealed. Pp. 10 15. 2. The court below undertook neither part of the Strickland inquiry and the record does not provide the Court with sufficientinformation to determine whether Ms. Kops rendered constitutionally inadequate assistance. The case is accordingly remanded fora determination whether Ms. Kops had a duty to consult with respondent (either because there were potential grounds for appealor because respondent expressed interest in appealing), whether she satisfied her obligations, and, if she did not, whetherrespondent was prejudiced thereby. Pp. 15 16.

160 F.3d 534, vacated and remanded.

O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined as to Part II B. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98 1441

ERNEST C. ROE, WARDEN, PETITIONER

v.

LUCIO FLORES-ORTEGA

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

February 23, 2000

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we must decide the proper framework for evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, based on counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal without respondent's consent.

I

The State of California charged respondent, Lucio Flores-Ortega, with one count of murder, two counts of assault, and a personal use of a deadly weapon enhancement allegation. In October 1993, respondent appeared in Superior Court with his court-appointed public defender, Nancy Kops, and a Spanish language interpreter, and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The plea was entered pursuant to a California rule permitting a defendant both to deny committing a crime and to admit that there is sufficient evidence to convict him. See People v. West, 3 Cal. 3d 595, 477 P.2d 409 (1970). In exchange for the guilty plea, the state prosecutor moved to strike the allegation of personal use of a deadly weapon and to dismiss both assault charges. On November 10, 1993, respondent was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. After pronouncing sentence, the trial judge informed respondent, "You may file an appeal within 60 days fromtoday's date with this Court. If you do not have money for Counsel, Counsel will be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4586 cases
  • Bucio v. Sutherland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 4 Diciembre 2009
    ......Smith, 395 F.3d 251, 258 (6th Cir.2005). "The relevant question is not whether counsel's choices were strategic, but whether they were reasonable." Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 481, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); accord Towns, 395 F.3d at 258. "A purportedly strategic decision is not objectively reasonable `when the attorney has failed to investigate his options and make a reasonable choice between them.'" Towns, 395 F.3d at 258 (quoting ......
  • Forestier-Figueroa v. United States, CIVIL 14-1023 (PG)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 30 Marzo 2015
    ...... See Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 57, 106 S. Ct. 366 (1985); Bonneau v. United States , 961 F.2d 17, 20-22 (1 st Cir. 1992); United States v. Tajeddini , 945 F.2d at 468-69, abrogated on other grounds by Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000); Bracero v. United States , 2015 WL 1098637 at *6. In Hill v. Lockhart , supra , the Supreme Court applied Strickland 's two-part test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the guilty plea context. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 58, 106 S. Ct. ......
  • Reid v. Bartkowski, Civil Action No. 11-4048 (JLL)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 15 Noviembre 2012
    ......Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000). The term "'consult' convey[s] a specific meaning-advising the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal, and making a reasonable effort to discover the defendant's wishes." Flores-Ortega at 478. Petitioner raised the issue of ineffective ......
  • Hernandez v. Martel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 16 Agosto 2011
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 books & journal articles
  • Right to counsel and effective assistance of counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...per se ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal, and the Strickland standard will apply to the situation. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S. Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). In some instances, counsel will not be ineffective for a failure to raise sufficiency of evidence ......
  • Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2019
    ...per se ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal, and the Strickland standard will apply to the situation. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S. Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). In some instances, counsel will not be ineffective for a failure to raise sufficiency of evidence ......
  • Money matters: judicial market interventions creating subsidies and awarding fees and costs in individual and aggregate litigation.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 148 No. 6, June 2000
    • 1 Junio 2000
    ...both a showing of attorney error and also that such errors affected the outcome to the defendant's detriment); Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000) (holding that criminal defense counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal without consulting with a defendant was not per se violativ......
  • Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2020 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2020
    ...per se ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal, and the Strickland standard will apply to the situation. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S. Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). In some instances, counsel will not be ineffective for a failure to raise sufficiency of evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT