trial court resolved the conflict in favor of Diaz when it found that counsel had not “properly advised his client about ... what his options were.” That finding is also consistent with counsel’s testimony that he did not specifically advise1 Diaz that he could appeal on the basis that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that he had performed an overt act. If Diaz had a viable legal defense, counsel had a duty to advise Diaz of that defense because the validity of the guilty plea depended' on Diaz making a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to him. See Savino v. Murray, 82 F.3d 593, 599 (4th Cir.1996) (citing Hill, 474 U.S. at 56, 106 S.Ct. 366); cf. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 120 S.Ct 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The record supports a finding that Diaz could
holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal holding that counsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think that a rational defendant would want to appeal holding that where counsel has failed to file or perfect an appeal despite the defendants request it is clear that the defendant need not demonstrate that but for the ineffectiveness of counsel such an appeal would have succeeded or even would have merit recognizing the right to counsel on appeal holding that trial counsel owes a criminal defendant a duty to file a notice of appeal regardless of whether the attorney was retained for the appeal or not