Page:Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. Idaho.pdf/3

Rh also proposes a rule that would require a defendant to show–on a case-by-case basis–that he would have presented claims that would have been considered by the appellate court on the merits. This Court, however, has already rejected attempts to condition the restoration of a defendant’s appellate rights forfeited by ineffective counsel on proof that the defendant’s appeal had merit. See, e. g., Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U. S. 327, 330. Moreover, it is not the defendant’s role to decide what arguments to press, making it especially improper to impose that role upon the defendant simply because his opportunity to appeal was relinquished by deficient counsel. And because there is no right to counsel in postconviction proceedings and, thus, most applicants proceed pro se, the Government’s proposal would be unfair, ill advised, and unworkable. Pp. 10–14.

162 Idaho 791, 405 P. 3d 576, reversed and remanded.

, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which, and , , , and , joined. , filed a dissenting opinion, in which, joined, and in which , joined as to Parts I and II.