In Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), the habeas corpus petitioner alleged counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. In discussing prejudice, the Court stated counsel's deficient performance deprived the defendant "of more than a fair judicial proceeding; that deficiency deprived the defendant of the appellate proceeding altogether." 120 S. Ct. at 1038. The Court stated this case was unusual because "counsel's alleged deficient performance arguably led not to a judicial proceeding of disputed reliability, but rather to the forfeiture of a proceeding itself," the appeal process. 120 S. Ct. at 1038 In these circumstances, the Flores-Ortega Court held there cannot be "any 'presumption of reliability' . . . to judicial proceedings that never took place." 120 S. Ct. at 1038. In Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470, the United Supreme Court addressed how to review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a notice of appeal, as well as the related claim of ineffective assistance in failing to discuss the option of filing an appeal with a client. Specifically, the court held "counsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are non frivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing." The Supreme Court noted that a defense attorney renders ineffective assistance if the attorney fails to file an appeal after being expressly instructed by the defendant to do so. Id., 528 U.S. at 477. The question presented in Flores-Ortega, was whether a defense attorney renders ineffective assistance of counsel if the attorney fails to file an appeal when the defendant "has not clearly conveyed his wishes one way or the other". Id. The Supreme Court held that ineffective assistance would be established if the defendant could show (1) that the attorney unreasonably failed to consult with the defendant about the possibility of an appeal, and (2) that, but for the defense attorney's deficient failure to consult with the defendant about an appeal, the defendant would have filed a timely appeal. Id., 528 U.S. at 484.