In the case of Garza v. Idaho, Gilberto Garza Jr., who had signed plea agreements that included waivers to appeal his conviction, later asked his lawyer to file an appeal. His attorney refused on the grounds of the waiver in the plea agreement. After missing the deadline for filing an appeal, Garza argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not follow through with his request to file an appeal despite having signed a waiver. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Garza in a 6-3 decision stating that when legal counsel's deficient performance costs a defendant an appeal that they may have otherwise pursued, prejudice is presumed with no requirement for showing whether or not there was merit to their claims. The court held that even if someone has waived their right to appeal as part of a plea deal, they can still raise issues about constitutional rights and effective representation by attorneys.

In the dissenting opinion for Garza v. Idaho, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, argued that a defendant who has signed an appeal waiver cannot show prejudice from counsel's failure to file an appeal unless he can indicate issues that could have been raised on appeal. The majority’s rule is inconsistent with Strickland v. Washington which requires defendants claiming ineffective assistance of counsel to prove both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. According to the dissenting justices, this ruling undermines plea bargains by incentivizing defendants who've waived their rights to appeals in exchange for lighter sentences or dropped charges to nonetheless pursue appeals without showing they have any legitimate grounds for doing so.