Whether trial counsel's concession of guilt to second-degree murder, over the defendant's express objection, violated the defendant's right to maintain his innocence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | This was a capital first-degree murder case that ended with a responsive verdict of guilty of second-degree murder which lead to the following questions: 1. Over Turnet’s objection, trial counsel told the jury the offense committed in this case was a general intent second degree murder and not the charged offense of first degree murder. Turner’s counsel told the jury the shooting only happened because a gunfight started after the robbery occurred because Turner, although he knew better, just wanted to get out. Did trial counsel’s concession of guilt to second degree murder, over Turner’s express objection, violate Turner’s right to maintain his innocence? 2. Before this Court rendered the decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, Turner had unsuccessfully litigated a claim that his trial counsel pled him guilty over his express objection. In denying the claim, the trial court applied an incorrect standard. Is there a remedy for cases that have become final prior to the announcement of the McCoy rule? ii