No. 20-6806

Troy Merck, Jr. v. Florida

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2021-01-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: autonomy-defense criminal-defense due-process mccoy-v-louisiana sixth-amendment specific-intent trial-counsel voluntary-intoxication
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-03-19
Question Presented (from Petition)

1.Whether a defendant's "[a]utonomy to decide that the
objective of the defense is to assert innocence." McCoy v.
Louisiana , 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1508 (2018), is violated by the
assertion of a voluntary intoxication defense which by its very
nature only negates the specific intent element of first-degree
murder.

2.Whether trial counsel "usurp[s] control" in violation
of the Sixth Amendment when he presents an affirmative defense
conceding his client committed a criminal act rather than
"maintain [the defendant's] innocence, leaving it to the State to
prove his guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt", as the defendant had
asserted. See McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1511.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a defendant's autonomy to decide the objective of the defense is violated by the assertion of a voluntary intoxication defense

Docket Entries

2021-03-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-02-05
Brief of respondent State of Florida in opposition filed.
2020-11-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 8, 2021)

Attorneys

State of Florida
Carolyn M. SnurkowskiOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Troy Merck
Martin J. McClainLaw Office of Martin J. McClain, Petitioner