In re Tom Smith on Habeas Corpus

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered a habeas corpus petition challenging a murder conviction based on defense counsel’s concession during closing argument that the petitioner was guilty of second-degree murder. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under McCoy v. Louisiana because he had not made an express and unambiguous objection to the defense strategy before counsel’s closing argument. The petition was denied, and the request for judicial notice was granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. McCoy did not apply because petitioner had not made an intransigent and unambiguous objection to counsel's change in strategy before counsel made the concession during closing argument. Although petitioner objected after the concession began, the record did not show that counsel overrode a clear, prior directive to maintain factual innocence.
2. McCoy did not announce a new rule. It extended and was foreshadowed by Florida v. Nixon by addressing the circumstance in which a defendant expressly objects to counsel's concession strategy; therefore, McCoy was entitled to retroactive application under the court's analysis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel violated the Sixth Amendment rule announced in McCoy v. Louisiana by conceding petitioner's involvement in the murder during closing argument.
2. Whether McCoy v. Louisiana announced a new rule and, if so, whether it applied retroactively to petitioner's final judgment on collateral review.
3. Whether the petition was procedurally barred.

Disposition

writ_denied