ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA (98-1441) 528 U.S. 470 (2000)
160 F.3d 534, vacated and remanded.
Syllabus
Opinion
[ O’Connor ]
Concurrence
[ Breyer ]
Other
[ Opinion of Souter ]
Other
[ Ginsburg ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

Breyer, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 98—1441

ERNEST C. ROE, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. LUCIO FLORES-ORTEGA

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[February 23, 2000]

Justice Breyer, concurring.

I write to emphasize that the question presented
concerned the filing of a “notice of appeal following a guilty plea.” Pet. for Cert. i (emphasis added). In that context I agree with the Court. I also join its opinion, which, in my view, makes clear that counsel does “almost always” have a constitutional duty to consult with a defendant about an appeal after a trial. Post, at 1 (Souter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. ante, at 7—9.