Where a capital defendant objected to his attorney's concession of guilt, does the explicit text of the Sixth Amendment and longstanding right to counsel jurisprudence circumvent the Teague bar and require the application of McCoy to cases on collateral review?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Where a capital defendant objected to his attorney’s concession of guilt, does the explicit text of the Sixth Amendment and longstanding right to counsel jurisprudence circumvent the Teague bar and require the application of McCoy to cases on collateral review? 2. Whether McCoy announced a substantive rule that should be applied retroactively to criminal defendants who were subjected to conviction without being afforded their constitutional right to counsel? 3. Whether the Griffith rather than Teague standard should apply to determine the retroactive application of McCoy, where initial review collateral claims are not final after direct review? ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES State v. Tyler, 2006-KP-2339 (La. 6/22/07), 959 So. 2d 487, cert. denied, Tyler v. Cain, 522 U.S. 1044 (2007). State v. Tyler, No. 175-282, slip op. (1st J.D.C. Aug. 11, 2006), writ denied, 2006-KP-2339 (La. 6/22/07), 959 So. 2d 487, cert. denied, Tyler v. Cain, 522 U.S. 1044 (2007). State v. Tyler, No. 175282, slip op. (1st J.D.C. Dec. 28, 2012), writ granted in part, denied in part, 2013-0913 (La. 11/22/2013), 129 So. 3d 1230. State v. Tyler, No. 175282, slip op. (1st J.D.C. Nov. 14, 2014), writs denied, 2015-0093 (La. 05/22/15), 171 So. 8d 922, 2013-0913 (La. 11/06/15), 181 So. 8d 678, cert. denied, Tyler v. Louisiana, 137 S.Ct. 589 (2016). State v. Tyler, No. 175-282, slip op. (1st J.D.C. Feb. 13, 2020), rehearing denied, No. 175-282, slip op. (1st J.D.C. May 15, 2020), writ denied, Tyler v. Vannoy, 2020-KP-0984 (La. 11/17/21), 327 So. 3d 507.