1. Petitioner, [Ezra Leslie], was charged with second-degree murder in the death of his paramour. Leslie maintained his innocence and informed his court-appointed counsel that he wished to pursue an actual-innocence defense. Counsel rejected Leslie's wishes to pursue the defense of his choice, in violation of the Sixth Amendment and contrary to this Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana , 138 S.Ct. 1500 [2018] and in direct contradiction to Leslie's wishes, counsel requested that the trial court instruct the jury as to the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.

Was Leslie's Sixth Amendment right to insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt violated when, against Leslie's wishes, counsel provided inferences that Leslie had caused the death of the victim but had done so unintentionally?

Was Leslie's Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel violated when, against Leslie's wishes, counsel provided inferences that Leslie had caused the death of the victim but had done so unintentionally?

2. Due to irreconcilable differences between Leslie and counsel concerning what defense to pursue, and the hostile and antagonistic relationship that developed between them result, both Leslie and counsel requested that the court appoint new counsel to represent Leslie.as a

The trial court denied both requests and admonished Leslie to obey the instructions of counsel as to what defense to present.

Was Leslie's Sixth Amendment right to choose his defense violated when the trial court denied both Leslie's and counsel's request that court appoint new counsel to defend Leslie?

Did the trial court commit s

Whether the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to choose his own defense and his due process right to a fair trial due to trial counsel's concession of guilt without the defendant's permission, and whether the defendant's conviction should be reversed due to structural error