Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2000

Roe v. Flores-Ortega

528 U.S. 470 | 120 S. Ct. 1029 | 145 L. Ed. 2d 985 | 2000 U.S. LEXIS 1539

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies Strickland to lost-appeal claims: counsel must consult when the circumstances make an appeal reasonably likely or the defendant signals interest, and the defendant must show a reasonable probability that proper consultation would have led him to appeal.

Background

Lucio Flores-Ortega pleaded guilty in California to second-degree murder under a procedure allowing him to deny guilt while acknowledging sufficient evidence to convict. In exchange, the State dismissed two assault charges and a deadly-weapon enhancement. He received a sentence of 15 years to life. The trial judge told him that he had 60 days to appeal and that counsel would be appointed if he could not afford one.

Flores-Ortega's appointed lawyer wrote “bring appeal papers” in her file, but no notice of appeal was filed. Flores-Ortega, who spoke little or no English and had limited understanding of the appellate process, was in lockup and unable to communicate with counsel for roughly 90 days after sentencing. About four months after sentencing, he tried to file a notice of appeal himself, but it was rejected as untimely.

In federal habeas proceedings, Flores-Ortega claimed that counsel had promised to appeal and rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file the notice. A Magistrate Judge found that he had not proved a promise, but also found that he had not consented to abandoning an appeal. The District Court denied relief. The Ninth Circuit reversed under its rule that counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal without the defendant's consent was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial, and directed issuance of a conditional writ unless California granted a new appeal.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Strickland ineffective-assistance framework governs a claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal without the defendant's consent.

Holding

Yes. Claims based on counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal are evaluated under Strickland's deficient-performance and prejudice requirements.

Reasoning

The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonably effective assistance, and Strickland supplies the general framework: the defendant must show objectively unreasonable performance and resulting prejudice. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's categorical approach because Strickland requires a circumstance-specific assessment rather than a per se rule based solely on a defendant's nonconsent to the failure to appeal.

A lawyer who disregards a defendant's express instruction to file an appeal acts unreasonably. Filing a notice of appeal is a simple ministerial task, not a strategic choice, and the defendant is entitled to rely on counsel to carry out that instruction. Conversely, a defendant who expressly instructs counsel not to appeal cannot claim deficient performance when counsel follows that instruction.

Issue #2

Whether counsel is constitutionally required to consult about an appeal whenever the defendant has not clearly stated whether he wants to appeal.

Holding

No. Counsel must consult about an appeal when there is reason to think that a rational defendant would want to appeal or that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated an interest in appealing.

Reasoning

The Court defined consultation as advising the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of an appeal and making a reasonable effort to learn the defendant's wishes. If counsel actually consulted, counsel is deficient only if she then failed to follow the defendant's express instruction concerning an appeal.

If counsel did not consult, the constitutional question is whether the failure to consult was objectively unreasonable in the circumstances. Counsel has a duty to consult when either a rational defendant would want to appeal—for example, because there are nonfrivolous appellate grounds—or the particular defendant reasonably indicated an interest in appealing.

Courts must consider all information counsel knew or should have known. Whether the conviction followed a trial or a guilty plea is highly relevant: a guilty plea narrows possible appellate issues and may suggest a desire to end the litigation. But a plea does not end the inquiry; courts should also consider whether the defendant received the bargained-for sentence and whether the plea reserved or waived appellate rights.

Although routine consultation is the better professional practice and state law may impose more demanding duties, the Constitution does not require consultation in every case. Strickland's standard asks whether counsel acted reasonably, not whether counsel followed the best possible practice or a mechanical rule.

Issue #3

What prejudice must a defendant show when counsel's deficient failure to consult causes the loss of an appeal.

Holding

The defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient failure to consult, he would have timely appealed; he need not show that the hypothetical appeal would likely have succeeded.

Reasoning

When deficient performance causes the forfeiture of an appellate proceeding the defendant otherwise would have taken, the loss is not merely an unreliable proceeding but the complete denial of the proceeding itself. In that circumstance, the defendant is entitled to an appeal without having to prove the merits of appellate claims.

The Ninth Circuit nevertheless erred by presuming prejudice from deficient performance alone. There is no constitutional injury unless counsel's deficiency actually caused the defendant to forfeit an appeal; a defendant who would not have appealed even with adequate advice has not been deprived of anything by counsel's lapse.

The required showing is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have appealed. Evidence of nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and a prompt expression of a desire to appeal can strongly support that showing, but neither is an absolute requirement. Requiring an indigent, often pro se defendant to identify meritorious appellate issues before counsel has reviewed the record would unfairly burden the claim.

The record did not reveal what, if anything, counsel told Flores-Ortega about appealing. The Court therefore could not determine whether counsel had a duty to consult, whether any consultation was adequate, or whether Flores-Ortega would have appealed with proper advice. It vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for those fact-dependent inquiries.

Concurrences

Justice Breyer

Reasoning

Justice Breyer emphasized the narrow setting of the case: the failure to file a notice of appeal after a guilty plea. He joined the Court's opinion because, in that context, its fact-specific consultation standard was appropriate.

He read the majority's reasoning to mean that, after a trial, counsel will almost always have a constitutional duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal. In his view, the majority's rule therefore largely accommodates Justice Souter's concern in the trial-conviction context.

Dissents

Justice Souter

Reasoning

Justice Souter agreed with the Court's prejudice analysis but disagreed with its performance analysis. He would hold that counsel must consult with a defendant about an appeal in almost every case in which a guilty plea has not plainly waived all possible claims of error.

The decision whether to appeal belongs to the defendant, and a defendant cannot make that choice intelligently without counsel's explanation of appeal rights, potential grounds for review, likely outcomes, and possible risks. Because defendants commonly lack legal sophistication, even a brief but meaningful discussion is ordinarily necessary before counsel may end the representation.

Professional standards, including ABA standards, the Model Rules, the Restatement, and California law, consistently require trial counsel to advise a convicted client about the possibility and merits of an appeal. Justice Souter viewed those norms as powerful evidence that consultation is ordinarily required by Strickland's objective-reasonableness standard.

In his view, the majority's resistance to a near-categorical rule misplaced Strickland's concern about deference to strategic judgments. Deciding to provide no advice about a client's personal choice to appeal is not a strategic decision, and a rule requiring consultation would not invite improper judicial second-guessing of litigation strategy.

The majority's test was especially inadequate for Flores-Ortega, who did not understand English or the appeal process. Requiring such an unsophisticated defendant to demonstrate interest in an appeal or identify nonfrivolous issues without prior legal advice effectively allows counsel's silence to cause an uninformed forfeiture of appellate rights.

Justice Ginsburg

Reasoning

Justice Ginsburg joined Justice Souter because his nearly universal consultation rule gave clearer guidance to lawyers and lower courts. She considered the practical difference between the majority and Justice Souter small: both recognized that counsel can hardly ever simply walk away after conviction without counseling the client about appeal rights.

She also believed the duty to consult was plainly unsatisfied on this record. Flores-Ortega's guilty plea did not waive his appellate rights, he and the State disputed the appropriate sentence, and his limited understanding of the legal system made meaningful advice from counsel particularly necessary.