Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals improperly narrowed McCoy

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the wake of this Court’s decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), two questions have emerged in the courts called on to apply that case. The first is the manner in which a defendant must have objected to trial counsel’s decision to forego a defense. Some courts have held that an objection to counsel alone is sufficient. Others have held that an objection must be made to both counsel and the trial court. In Mr. Coble’s case, the objection was lodged only with counsel. The second question is whether McCoy applies only in circumstances where the defendant seeks to assert his actual innocence or, more broadly, whenever the defendant seeks to have some defense asserted rather than have his guilt conceded. In Mr. Coble’s case, he did not seek to assert innocence but did insist that a defense be presented and that guilt not be conceded. The conflicting answers courts have given in post-McCoy decisions call for this Court to provide more guidance, and give rise to the following questions presented: 1. Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals improperly narrowed McCoy in light of unrefuted evidence that Petitioner expressed opposition to his lawyers concerning their decision to drop any defense and concede guilt? 2. Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals improperly narrowed McCoy to circumstances in which the defendant’s objective was to assert actual innocence rather than to assert some kind of defense? -ii