Today in Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, (2019), the Supreme Court extended Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S. 470 (2000), which held that when an attorney’s deficient performance costs a defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued, prejudice to the defendant should be presumed “with no further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims.”
Under today's decision, the same rule applies even when the defendant has signed an appellate waiver: "This case asks whether that rule applies even when the defendant has, in the course of pleading guilty, signed what is often called an 'appeal waiver'—that is, an agreement forgoing certain, but not all, possible appellate claims. We hold that the presumption of prejudice recognized in Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether the defendant has signed an appeal waiver."
Additionally, the Court made clear, "simply filing a notice of appeal does not necessarily breach a plea agreement, given the possibility that the defendant will end up raising claims beyond the waiver’s scope."
