Finding the syllogism(s)

From a discussion of the Garza case recently argued before SCOTUS, I see this passage:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/argument-preview-can-a-criminal-defense-lawyer-refuse-to-file-an-appeal-from-a-guilty-plea-because-of-an-appeal-waiver/  

"In support of its underlying objective of promoting the broad enforceability of appeal waivers, the state strongly implies that this case is governed by a simple syllogism. Ineffective assistance of counsel presumes the existence of a right to counsel. The right to counsel has to be attached to some underlying procedural right, such as the right to trial or the right to appeal. Here, however, Garza waived his right to appeal. Thus, his attorney could not possibly have rendered ineffective assistance with respect to any appeal."

I don't see the syllogism in that passage, though there is clearly a claim that a "simple syllogism" is involved. 

The syllogism that the author has in mind might be a modus ponens, thus:

P1. If Garza had no right to appeal then he had no right to assistance of counsel in the preparation of that appeal.

P2. Garza had no right to appeal.

C. Thus, Garza had no right to the assistance of counsel in the preparation of that appeal. 

Further, our commenter seems to believe that of these premises it is P2 that requires further explication So another syllogism gets us there:

P. 3. If a right to appeal had been waived prior to its (attempted) exercise, the waiver is effective -- i.e. the right does not exist. 

P. 4. Prior to the events at issue in this matter now before SCOTUS, Gaza had waived his right to appeal.

C. (also P2). Garza had no right to appeal.

Now THAT is how one constructs a syllogism.

Enough of the logic exercise, although I should discuss the actual case some time soon.