Page:Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. Idaho.pdf/28

Rh his damaging testimony from the record. Nor can a defendant waive his right to a jury trial, and then later claim prejudice when his attorney declines to seek a mistrial on the ground that the judge found him guilty. In the same way, Garza was not prejudiced by his attorney’s refusal to file an appeal challenging his sentence, a right that he had expressly waived. The lack of prejudice is especially pronounced in this case, as Garza’s instruction to appeal did not acknowledge that he wanted to challenge or rescind the plea agreements.

There is no persuasive reason to depart from an ordinary Strickland analysis in cases involving an attorney’s decision to honor his client’s agreement to waive his appeal rights. Garza contends that it is unfair to require pro se defendants to identify the issues they would have raised on appeal. But pro se defendants always bear the burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel; I see no reason why this kind of ineffective-assistance claim should be any different. Regardless, Garza’s fairness argument rings hollow because Garza has been represented by counsel at every stage of this collateral litigation and has yet to articulate a single nonfrivolous, nonwaived issue that he would have raised on appeal. His inability to identify any issues that he preserved simply underscores the fact that he waived them all.

The Court’s rule may be easy to “administ[er],” ante, at 13, but it undermines the finality of criminal judgments–a primary purpose of plea agreements–and disadvantages the public by allowing defendants to relitigate issues that they waived in exchange for substantial benefits. The Court’s rule also burdens the appellate courts that must address the new, meritless appeals authorized by today’s decision. And, ironically, the Court’s rule may prejudice the defendants it is designed to help, as prosecutors may