Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneyappealtrialdefense attorney

defendantattorneyappealdefense attorney

Related Cases

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985, 68 USLW 4132, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1352, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1897, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 915, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 122

Facts

Lucio Flores-Ortega pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. After sentencing, the trial judge informed him of his right to appeal within 60 days. Although his attorney noted in her file to bring appeal papers, no notice of appeal was filed. Flores-Ortega attempted to file a notice of appeal after the deadline, which was rejected as untimely. He subsequently sought state and federal habeas relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to file the notice of appeal as promised.

Lucio Flores-Ortega pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

Issue

Whether a defense attorney's failure to file a notice of appeal without the defendant's consent constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

Rule

The Court applied the two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington, requiring a defendant to show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. The Court clarified that counsel has a duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there are reasons to believe the defendant would want to appeal.

The Court applied the two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington, requiring a defendant to show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.

Analysis

The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's bright-line rule that failing to file a notice of appeal without the defendant's consent is per se deficient. Instead, it emphasized the need for a circumstance-specific inquiry into whether counsel consulted with the defendant about an appeal. The Court noted that if counsel did not consult, it must be determined whether that failure itself constituted deficient performance, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case.

The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's bright-line rule that failing to file a notice of appeal without the defendant's consent is per se deficient.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the attorney had a duty to consult with Flores-Ortega about an appeal and whether any failure to do so resulted in prejudice.

Who won?

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, thus favoring the position that the case required further examination rather than granting automatic relief based on the previous ruling.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 923, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4773, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6078

Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, 529 Pa. 241, 602 A.2d 1277, 60 USLW 2497

People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 74 P.3d 176, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7310, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9124

Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 1 Media L. Rep. 1310

Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 436 Mass. 347, 764 N.E.2d 825