Troy Merck, Jr. v. State of Florida, 298 So.3d 1120

Troy Merck was convicted of first-degree murder in 1993 and has repeatedly been sentenced to death with multiple direct appeals and resentencings.
The case has a long postconviction history, including Merck I–V and prior denials of 3.851 relief.
Merck obtained resentencing relief on a Hurst-based second successive motion in 2017; the State voluntarily dismissed its appeal, leaving that order final.
On May 10, 2019 Merck filed a third successive 3.851 motion asserting a McCoy claim: that trial counsel overrode Merck’s objective of asserting actual innocence and instead conceded guilt by arguing voluntary intoxication.
The circuit court dismissed the motion as untimely under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2)(B) and observed the claim likely lacked merit.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed on the merits, holding the record conclusively refuted any concession of guilt; it did not decide timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s conduct violated the Sixth Amendment under McCoy v. Louisiana by conceding guilt over Merck’s objective to maintain innocence	Merck: Trial counsel overrode his objective of asserting innocence by conceding guilt through an intoxication-based defense	State: The trial record shows counsel did not admit Merck’s guilt; counsel advanced intoxication as a theory, not a concession	Court held the record conclusively refutes any concession of guilt; no McCoy violation and claim denied
Whether the successive motion was timely under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2)(B)	Merck: The claim was timely (based on McCoy and related developments)	State: Motion was untimely under the rule	Court declined to decide timeliness because Merck’s claim fails on the merits

McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (establishes that counsel may not concede a defendant’s guilt over the defendant’s express objective to maintain innocence)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (addressed the Sixth Amendment/jury role in capital sentencing; basis for earlier Hurst-based relief)
Merck v. State, 124 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2013) (previous postconviction opinion finding trial counsel never admitted guilt)
Merck v. State, 260 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2018) (addressed jurisdictional posture while Merck awaited resentencing)
Dailey v. State, 279 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2019) (standard: appellate review of summary dismissal is de novo)
Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1985) (noting voluntary intoxication as a defense to specific-intent crimes at the time of trial)