Right to counsel; Sixth Amendment; Defendant’s autonomy to maintain innocence; McCoy v Louisiana; Concession of guilt; Structural error; Distinguishing Florida v Nixon; Failure to consult; Lack of a contemporaneous objection; Preservation; Resisting or obstructing a police officer; Lawfulness of arrest; People v Moreno

The court held that trial counsel violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of autonomy by conceding his guilt of trespassing during closing argument without consulting him, where defendant had consistently maintained his innocence. Defendant was charged with trespass and resisting or obstructing officers after he refused to leave a home he believed he had a right to occupy, despite an eviction order. The court first held that McCoy applies outside capital cases because “the Sixth Amendment principles from the decision are not so limited,” and a defendant’s right to maintain innocence applies “in all criminal prosecutions.” Applying McCoy, the court held that counsel could not concede guilt because defendant’s “expressed pretrial defense objective was to maintain his innocence,” counsel knew defendant “would not admit to wrongdoing,” and defendant testified that he did not believe he was trespassing. The court rejected reliance on Nixon because that case applies when counsel consults the defendant about a concession strategy and the defendant remains unresponsive, while here “consultation never happened.” The court also rejected the view that defendant needed to contemporaneously object, explaining that “the right of autonomy to maintain innocence is not lost simply because a client fails to contemporaneously object,” especially where counsel first conceded guilt at closing and the trial court did not allow defendant to speak afterward. Finally, the court held that the structural error required reversal of all convictions because the trespass and resisting-or-obstructing charges were “interconnected,” and conceding trespass “necessarily undermined” any challenge to whether the officers acted lawfully in arresting him. The court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment, vacated defendant’s convictions, and remanded.