Francisco Gomez-Diaz v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
COX, Circuit Judge:
Francisco Gomez-Diaz (“Petitioner”) filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence on federal offenses. He alleged, among other things, that counsel appointed to represent him failed to file a notice of appeal as he requested.
It is well-settled that a lawyer who disregards instructions from his client to appeal has acted “in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). Prejudice is presumed. Id. at 483, 120 S.Ct. at 1035. The issue on this appeal is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Roe v. Flores-OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by101 opinions
- Garza v. IdahoSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- United States v. PoindexterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. ShedrickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Robert Campbell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Watson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.