The Talladega County trial court deprived Petitioner Charles L. Burton, Jr., of counsel by forcing his attorneys, against their strategic judgment, to call two codefendants as witnesses. Prejudice ensued. The co-defendants denied even knowing Mr. Burton, and the State introduced otherwise inadmissible evidence to show they lied. The state appellate courts refused to correct these constitutional errors. Mr. Burton fared no better during federal habeas proceedings. Mr. Burton argued Jones v. Barnes clearly established that witness choice is a strategic matter and not one of the fundamental case decisions left to the defendant. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals rejected his argument. The court of appeals held that Jones v. Barnes did not clearly establish that witness choice is counsel's strategic decision, nor did any other Supreme Court case in existence at the time. Its narrow construction of § 2254(d)(1) prevented the court of appeals from reaching Mr. Burton's constitutional questions. So, in 2019, after this Court decided McCoy v. Louisiana, Mr. Burton tried again to have the State of Alabama recognize the trial court interfered with his right to counsel. He was again unsuccessful.

This Court recently clarified the meaning of "clearly established Federal law" in Andrew v. White. Mr. Burton moved under Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen his federal habeas proceedings on the merits. But the district court dismissed the motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition and stated it would not issue a certificate of appealability ("COA"). The Eleventh Circuit likewise refused to grant a COA despite the question raised being clearly debatable by jurists of reason.

This case presents three questions in need of resolution:

1. Did the court of appeals, in denying Mr. Burton a COA, perpetuate a circuit split, violate Mr. Burton's equal protection rights, and deprive him of "one full round of federal habeas review"?

2. Was it debatable by jurists of reason whether Mr. Burton's Rule 60(b) motion was a "true" 60(b) motion under Gonzalez v. Crosby?

3. Did the courts' refusal to grant a COA perpetuate Alabama courts' continued misapplication of federal constitutional law on the issue of counsel's role versus that of the client?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated petitioner's right to counsel and equal protection rights by denying a certificate of appealability and refusing to address whether a trial court's forced calling of codefendants as witnesses constitutes a clearly established violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Jones v. Barnes and McCoy v. Louisiana