Frank James Neal v. Michigan

In Roe v Flores-Ortega, this Court said that the decision to appeal rests with the defendant, so counsel has a constitutionally-imposed duty to consult with the defendant about the appeal. In this case, the State court vacated defendant's convictions and sentences, and remand for a new trial. Then the State court vacated the new trial because appellate counsel—without defendant's consent—filed a motion for reconsideration on an undecided issue. Does counsel perform in a professionally unreasonable manner by initiating an appeal without an effort to discover defendant's wishes? and, What remedy is there for defendant's injury from counsel's deficient performance? In Smith v Bennett, 365 US 708 (1961), this Court determined that equal force of review apply to state post-conviction, so does Michigan state courts' summarily denial of constitutional errors without a merit determinations amount to a review under the due process and equal protection clauses?