982 F.3d 229
4th Cir.2020Background
- In 2001 Smith shot and killed a man during a drug deal; at trial Smith testified he acted in self‑defense. Defense counsel, over Smith’s asserted objection, told the jury Smith was guilty of felony murder. The jury convicted Smith of first‑degree murder and sentenced him to life without parole.
- Smith’s direct appeal was denied in 2003; his first state postconviction petition (filed 2004) was denied and became final in 2005.
- A second state postconviction motion raising counsel’s admission-of-guilt claim was denied on the merits; state appellate courts affirmed.
- Smith filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2017; the district court dismissed it as untimely under AEDPA’s one‑year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)).
- Smith argued McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) created a newly recognized, retroactively applicable constitutional right (so triggering § 2244(d)(1)(C) and extending his limitations period); the Fourth Circuit rejected that contention and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCoy announced a new rule that restarts AEDPA’s limitations period under § 2244(d)(1)(C) | Smith: McCoy created a new Sixth Amendment right to control the objective of the defense and to forbid counsel from conceding guilt; thus the limitations period runs from McCoy’s date | Respondents: McCoy either is not a new rule for § 2244(d)(1)(C) or is not retroactively applicable on collateral review | Court: It need not decide newness because McCoy is not retroactively applicable as a watershed rule |
| Whether McCoy is retroactively applicable on collateral review (i.e., is a Teague “watershed” rule) | Smith: McCoy should be applied retroactively and thus toll AEDPA’s limitations | Respondents: Under Teague and its progeny, McCoy is procedural and not a watershed rule; Teague bars retroactive application | Court: McCoy is not a watershed rule; it refines Gideon but is not of the narrow, fundamental character required for retroactivity; petition remains untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (recognizing defendant’s right to decide the objective of defense; concession of guilt over client’s objection is structural error)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (framework governing retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (new procedural rules generally apply only on direct review unless substantive or watershed)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (counsel may concede guilt when defendant, informed, neither consents nor objects)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to counsel as a foundational Sixth Amendment rule)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (Teague’s watershed exception is extremely narrow and rarely satisfied)