Spence’s rights under the Sixth Amendment. The now-familiar Strickland test requires that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel show (1) that counsel’s representation “fell below an effective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Roe, 528 U.S. at 476-77; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under this standard, “a lawyer who disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable,” while a lawyer who does not file an appeal based on a defendant’s explicit instructions to forgo an appeal acts in a professionally reasonable manner. Roe, 528 U.S. at 477; see also Ludwig, 162 F.3d at 459 (<HOLDING>). Where the defendant does not explicitly
holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights holding that the failure to perfect a direct appeal in derogation of a defendants actual request is a per se violation of the sixth amendment holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that courts may not find a per se sixth amendment violation where the defendant was unable to present relevant evidence holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation