1

Filed 3/26/19

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MORGAN EASTWOOD EDDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

C085091

(Super. Ct. No. 16F2585)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, Stephen H. 

Baker, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Candace Hale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and 

Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

This appeal presents an issue of fundamental importance to all defendants facing 

criminal prosecution in California: whether the Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in McCoy v. 

Louisiana (2018) 584 U.S. __ [200 L.Ed.2d 821] (McCoy), affords a defendant an 

absolute right to decide the objective of his defense and to insist that his counsel refrain 

from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experience-based view is that confessing guilt 

might yield the best outcome at trial. Because we conclude that defendant’s absolute 

right under McCoy to maintain his innocence was violated, we must reverse both his 

conviction for first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and the associated 

finding of true on the special allegation that he used a knife in the commission of the 

crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)). Having determined that defendant is entitled to a new trial, 

we do not reach his remaining contentions. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Morgan Eastwood Eddy and the victim often spent time at Lonnie L.’s 

apartment. At some point, however, Lonnie decided that defendant was no longer 

allowed in the residence. On the day of the victim’s death, defendant came to the 

apartment and Lonnie asked him to leave. Defendant initially complied, but shortly after 

Lonnie left, defendant returned. The victim then told defendant to leave. The victim and 

defendant subsequently yelled at each other and engaged in aggressive, mutual hand-tohand combat inside and outside of the apartment, which was observed by multiple 

individuals. At one point, the victim had defendant pinned on the ground and repeatedly 

asked defendant if he would leave if the victim let him go. Carl C., who also lived in the 

apartment and was present during the altercation, told the men not to fight, and reminded 

them they were friends. 

 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Defendant eventually agreed to leave and the victim went outside. The victim was 

turning to his right when Joseph S., a neighbor, saw defendant exit the apartment and 

strike the victim in the abdomen three times with a clenched fist in a sideways motion, 

consistent with a stabbing. Joseph did not see a weapon but heard sounds consistent with 

punches connecting. The victim, looking in defendant’s direction with a terrified 

expression, exclaimed, “You stabbed me!”2 and fell to the ground. Joseph saw defendant 

briefly reenter the apartment to grab a bag before fleeing the scene. Joseph did not see 

defendant discard anything in the apartment. Joseph attempted to pursue defendant after 

seeing blood on the victim’s shirt. 

Carl testified that after the fight was over, but before the stabbing, he saw 

defendant grab something from the apartment, but he could not say whether it was a 

knife. After defendant left the apartment, Carl heard the victim yell, “Ooo, you stabbed 

me.” Carl found the victim lying on the ground and called 911. After briefly speaking 

with a responding officer, Carl retreated into the apartment and took a shower. 

Officer Peggy Porter tried to reinitiate contact with Carl for at least 30 minutes 

following their brief conversation. Once Officer Porter gained access to the apartment, 

she conducted a visual search, but did not find the murder weapon. A short time later, a 

knife was recovered from under the kitchen table when Officer Porter returned to the 

scene following a phone call from Lonnie.3 

 

2

 Another neighbor, Bernardino C., heard the victim say, “Really, you stabbed me?” 

This neighbor was distracted by his children and did not see defendant leave, nor did he 

see the victim fall. Bernardino saw Carl in the kitchen during the fight, but did not see 

defendant in the kitchen. This is pertinent because the knife used to stab the victim had 

been left on the kitchen counter after it was used to cut cinnamon rolls earlier in the day. 

3

 Officer Porter explained in her testimony that she had not searched under the table 

during her canvas of the apartment. 
4

DNA testing matched the blood on the knife to the victim. Neither of the two 

DNA profiles developed from the blade matched defendant, no profiles were developed 

from the handle, and although there were possible fingerprints on the blade, the 

criminalist was not asked to analyze them. 

Officer Porter also testified regarding her contact with the victim, who was 

unresponsive but had a pulse. The victim was treated by paramedics, who transported 

him to the hospital where he was later declared dead. A forensic pathologist testified the 

victim bled to death as a result of a single stab wound to the lower abdomen, which cut 

the lower aorta and vena cava. The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder 

(§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true the special allegation that he had used a knife (§ 12022, 

subd. (b)). 

At his sentencing hearing, defendant made a Marsden4request to replace his 

counsel, which the trial court denied. The court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life, 

plus one year for the knife enhancement. The court also imposed various fines and fees 

and awarded victim restitution, none of which are challenged on appeal. Defendant 

timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues trial counsel violated his “Sixth Amendment right to choose the 

objective of his defense by conceding guilt against his express wishes.” The People 

counter that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in McCoy is distinguishable 

because in this case, defendant did not consistently assert his right to maintain innocence 

as the objective of his defense, did not object to counsel’s concession of guilt until after 

he was convicted, and did not present an alibi defense like the defendant in McCoy. 

 

4 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 
5

We find that the record before us establishes that, under McCoy, defendant’s Sixth 

Amendment rights were violated by his counsel’s actions and find no meaningful basis 

upon which to distinguish this case from McCoy’s recognition of a defendant’s absolute 

right to maintain innocence as the objective of his defense. 

A. Procedural History Relevant to Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Claim

In his opening statement, given on May 23, 2017, trial counsel established 

defendant’s initial strategy for defending the case—factual innocence. Counsel stated 

there was no evidence that defendant ever wielded the knife, much less committed the 

stabbing. On the other hand, the knife was used frequently by Carl, another resident of 

the apartment who was present during the fight. According to trial counsel, Carl’s 

“evasive” and “dishonest” behavior following the crime was designed to avoid “revealing 

his own involvement in the stabbing.” Just one day later, however, and following a 

failure to present an affirmative defense case, trial counsel conceded in his closing 

argument that defendant “committed the crime [of voluntary manslaughter] on April 23, 

2016,” but maintained that defendant was not guilty of first or second degree murder. 

The jury disagreed, finding defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and 

declaring true the special allegation that he used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)). 

When defendant next appeared in court at his June 16, 2017 sentencing hearing, 

defendant maintained that the stabbing had really been committed by Carl. Following an 

off-the-record discussion and subsequent colloquy intended to confirm that there were no 

pending issues precluding the pronouncement of judgment, a disagreement arose between 

defendant and his counsel over whether to file a new trial motion. Upon learning of his 

right under Marsden to seek new counsel, defendant made a motion to replace his 

attorney. 

At the Marsden hearing, defendant raised three principal complaints: (1) his 

disagreement with trial counsel concerning his factual innocence defense; (2) issues 

related to search and seizure not relevant here; and (3) trial counsel’s alleged refusal to 
6

allow defendant to testify in his own defense. Ultimately, the trial court denied 

defendant’s Marsden motion. We briefly discuss defendant’s first and third arguments.

1. The Factual Innocence Defense

At the Marsden hearing, defendant informed the court he wanted a new attorney 

“because we had disagreed on his argument, for one, like I mentioned earlier, about the 

evidence pointing to another person. And he had said he felt this was my best shot asking 

for manslaughter, which wasn’t the case since I’m not guilty of this crime.” 

In response, his trial counsel stated: “The closing argument in this case, the tactic 

that I chose to take was to argue for . . . voluntary manslaughter. This was an issue that 

was discussed with not just [defendant], it was addressed, discussed before it was made 

with . . . the head public defender [and] with my chief investigator, who has been an 

investigator for 45 years, who was extensively involved in this case. . . . We staffed this 

several times trying to decide what is the best closing argument in this case, whether it’s 

to go for voluntary manslaughter and argue that, or argue that [defendant] didn’t commit 

the crime at all. We were trying to decide which would be the best tactic.”

“I think the day prior to making the argument, I know [defendant] and I discussed 

it. I know what he wanted to go forward with, I didn’t do it. However, I know that after 

[we] spoke I was in a jury instruction conference with the Court, I know he met with my 

chief investigator. The word I received was he agreed with this. The day we were 

making the closing argument, [defendant] was waffling a little bit. [¶] At that point[,] I 

was committed to making the closing argument that we’re going to go for the voluntary 

manslaughter. I understand [what] his position was, but that was the best—in my 

professional opinion that was the best tactic that was going to obtain the best result for 

[defendant].” 

In rebuttal, defendant reiterated that counsel acted contrary to his wishes and 

instructions, stating: “I wanted to substantiate, you know, me not doing—committing 

this crime, whereas he turned around and was asking for manslaughter, telling them I had 
7

committed the crime. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] I advised him not to go that route, and he had done 

it anyway.” Defendant also stated, “From the get-go, I was arguing from the very, very 

get-go from the first, none of his blood was on me. There’s no trace evidence, my prints 

nor my DNA was on the knife, and he was wanting to take a different route. It was 

almost as if I felt at times he thought I was guilty.” 

Defense counsel did not deny that he conceded guilt in his closing argument 

notwithstanding defendant’s desire to maintain his innocence. Instead, he said: “I do 

want to point out on the closing argument I wasn’t just looking at the DNA not found on 

the knife. I had to look at the totality of the evidence that was presented that I had in 

making that decision, and that was the basis of my decision to go forward with the 

closing argument that I did, was the basis of the totality of the evidence and what was 

going to be the best possible result, I believe, with the jury.” 

2. The Right to Testify

During the Marsden hearing, defendant also complained that his counsel had not 

let him testify: “I wanted to take the stand, which he advised against, would not let me. 

And I thought, you know, I would be able to get to tell my whole story and whatnot 

instead of just answering questions.” (Italics added.) He reiterated this later, stating, 

“And I really wanted to take the stand and tell my side of the story.” Counsel never 

responded to this assertion, nor did the court request that counsel address it before stating 

they would never know whether testifying would have been helpful to defendant’s case, 

and that “attorneys have to make decisions based upon the best information that they 

have at the time of the case.” 

B. The Law

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to assistance of 

counsel in his or her defense. (McCoy, supra, 548 U.S. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 

829].) As explained in McCoy, “ ‘[t]he right to defend is personal,’ and a defendant’s 
8

choice in exercising that right ‘must be honored out of “that respect for the individual 

which is the lifeblood of the law.” ’ [Citations.] 

“The choice is not all or nothing: To gain assistance, a defendant need not 

surrender control entirely to counsel. For the Sixth Amendment, in ‘grant[ing] to the 

accused personally the right to make his defense,’ ‘speaks of the “assistance” of counsel, 

and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.’ [Citations.] Trial management is 

the lawyer’s province: Counsel provides his or her assistance by making decisions such 

as ‘what arguments to pursue, what evidentiary objections to raise, and what agreements 

to conclude regarding the admission of evidence.’ [Citation.] Some decisions, however, 

are reserved for the client—notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury 

trial, testify in one’s own behalf, and forgo an appeal. [Citation.]

“Autonomy to decide that the objective of the defense is to assert innocence 

belongs in this latter category. Just as a defendant may steadfastly refuse to plead guilty 

in the face of overwhelming evidence against her, or reject the assistance of legal counsel 

despite the defendant’s own inexperience and lack of professional qualifications, so may 

she insist on maintaining her innocence at the guilt phase of a capital trial. These are not 

strategic choices about how best to achieve a client’s objectives; they are choices about 

what the client’s objectives in fact are. [Citations.]” (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at pp. ___ 

[200 L.Ed.2d at pp. 829-830].) 

Thus, McCoy recognized that even in the face of counsel’s better judgment and 

experience, “[w]hen a client expressly asserts that the objective of ‘his defen[s]e’ is to 

maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, his lawyer must abide by that objective 

and may not override it by conceding guilt.” (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. ___ [200 

L.Ed.2d at p. 831].) McCoy therefore held: “[A] defendant has the right to insist that 

counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experienced-based view is that 

confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. 

Guaranteeing a defendant the right ‘to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defen[s]e,’
9

the Sixth Amendment so demands. With individual liberty—and, in capital cases, life—

at stake, it is the defendant’s prerogative, not counsel’s, to decide on the objective of his 

defense: to admit guilt in the hope of gaining mercy at the sentencing stage, or to 

maintain his innocence, leaving it to the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” (Id. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 827].) 

A violation of the client’s right to maintain his or her defense of innocence 

implicates the client’s autonomy (not counsel’s effectiveness) and is thus complete once 

counsel usurps control of an issue within the defendant’s “sole prerogative.”5 (McCoy, 

supra, 584 U.S. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 833].) McCoy held that error of this kind is 

structural and not subject to harmless error review because it “blocks the defendant’s 

right to make fundamental choices about his own defense” and “the effects of the 

admission would be immeasurable.” (Id. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 834].) 

C. Analysis

Here, defendant argues his counsel’s concession during closing arguments that he 

committed manslaughter violated his Sixth Amendment right to maintain his absolute 

innocence. We agree that McCoy protects defendant’s right to determine that the 

objective of his defense is innocence and conclude, on this record, that the rule 

announced in McCoy applies here.

The defendant in McCoy, accused of murdering three individuals, at all times 

maintained his factual innocence of the crimes, asserting he was out of state at the time of 

the killings. (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 827].) In spite of this, 

 

5

 Although McCoy observes that “the violation of McCoy’s protected autonomy right 

was complete when the court allowed counsel to usurp control of an issue within 

McCoy’s sole prerogative” (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 833]), 

we do not believe that judicial assent is necessary to establish a violation of the Sixth 

Amendment right. This statement merely reflects that the defendant in McCoy objected 

during the opening statement and was admonished by the court, who allowed defense 

counsel to continue. (Id. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 828].) 
10

defense counsel conceded at trial that the evidence would show that defendant killed the 

victims (id. at pp. ____ [200 L.Ed.2d at pp. 828-829]), arguing only that the defendant 

did not commit first degree murder. (Id. at pp. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at pp. 834-835] (dis. 

opn. of Alito, J.).) After objecting at trial, defendant argued unsuccessfully in a new trial 

motion that his attorney’s concession of guilt violated his constitutional rights. (Id. at p. 

___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 829].) The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Louisiana 

Supreme Court on the ground that defense counsel had authority to concede guilt

“because counsel reasonably believed that admitting guilt afforded McCoy the best 

chance to avoid a death sentence.” (Ibid.) The Supreme Court of the United States 

granted certiorari to determine “whether it is unconstitutional to allow defense counsel to 

concede guilt over the defendant’s intransigent and unambiguous objection.” (Ibid.) As 

noted above, McCoy held that an attorney must abide his client’s expressed objective of 

innocence, even if pursuing that defense is against that attorney’s better judgment and 

experience. (Id. at pp. ___, ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at pp. 827, 829-833].) 

The People counter that McCoy is distinguishable because defendant did not 

consistently maintain his right to an innocence defense, did not complain about counsel’s 

argument until after he was convicted, and did not present a complete alibi defense. We 

disagree.

The Marsden hearing record establishes that trial counsel knew that defendant did 

not agree with the strategy of conceding manslaughter in closing argument, even if 

defendant had temporarily acquiesced to the strategy.6 The People make much of 

 

6

 Even if defendant had told an investigator that he would go along with the 

manslaughter concession strategy, that would not divest him of the fundamental right 

articulated in McCoy. The People have provided no authority suggesting temporary 

acquiescence would abrogate the right, and we are similarly unpersuaded that briefly 

acquiescing to counsel’s strategy outside of court, but then retracting the concession 

before the closing argument, is analogous to the defendant in Florida v. Nixon (2004) 

543 U.S. 175, 185-186 [160 L.Ed.2d 565, 577], who declined to participate in any aspect 
11

counsel’s statement that defendant was “waffling a little bit” on the day of closing 

argument, suggesting that defendant did not unequivocally retract his alleged concession 

and was “inconsistent” in his defense strategy.7 However, that statement must be taken 

in context, and in context it is clear counsel was instructed not to make the argument but 

did so anyway because of counsel’s judgment that it was in defendant’s best interests. 

Counsel stated: “I think the day prior to making the argument, I know [defendant] 

and I discussed it. I know what he wanted to go forward with, I didn’t do it. However, I 

know that after [we] spoke I was in a jury instruction conference with the Court, I know 

he met with my chief investigator. The word I received was he agreed with this. The day 

we were making the closing argument, [defendant] was waffling a little bit. [¶] At that 

point[,] I was committed to making the closing argument that we’re going to go for the 

voluntary manslaughter. I understand [what] his position was, but that was the best—in 

my professional opinion that was the best tactic that was going to obtain the best result 

for [defendant].” (Italics added.) 

In his testimony at the Marsden hearing, defendant made clear that he had 

instructed his counsel not to concede manslaughter and that counsel had overridden this 

directive: “I wanted to substantiate, you know, me not doing—committing this crime, 

whereas he turned around and was asking for manslaughter, telling them I had committed 

the crime. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] I advised him not to go that route, and he had done it 

anyway.” (Italics added.) Although counsel reiterated that he did what he thought was 

 

of his defense and objected only after he was found guilty. (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. 

___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 831].) 

7

 The People’s suggestion that McCoy should be distinguished because defendant 

purportedly failed to oppose defense counsel’s strategy throughout the trial ignores that 

the trial proceeded on an innocence theory and that counsel’s decision to make a 

manslaughter concession occurred shortly before closing arguments. We cannot fault 

defendant for failing to object earlier to a decision that was made without notice one day 

before closing arguments. 
12

best given the totality of the evidence, a proposition that is not in question, he did not 

deny that he received this instruction before he gave his closing argument. Accordingly, 

we find the record establishes that defendant instructed his counsel to maintain his 

innocence before the closing argument and that this instruction was not honored.

Further, while defendant did not object during closing argument after his counsel 

conceded his guilt of voluntary manslaughter, we do not think preservation of the Sixth 

Amendment right recognized in McCoy necessarily turns on whether a defendant objects 

in court before his or her conviction. Rather, the record must show (1) that defendant’s 

plain objective is to maintain his innocence and pursue an acquittal, and (2) that trial 

counsel disregards that objective and overrides his client by conceding guilt. (McCoy, 

supra, 584 U.S. at pp. ___, ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at pp. 827, 829-833].) Although such 

evidence may come in the form of a defendant objecting during argument, on this record 

we conclude McCoy applies here. 

We also disagree with the People that defendant’s defense theory (that someone 

else killed the victim) is sufficiently distinguishable from the defendant in McCoy who 

advanced an alibi defense. Both defenses are rooted in factual innocence. (See McCoy, 

supra, 584 U.S. at pp. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at pp. 832-833] [concurring with cited state 

supreme court cases recognizing a right to maintain the fundamental objective of the 

defense was factual innocence over counsel’s desire to concede commission of criminal 

acts and pursue defenses of “diminished capacity, mental illness, or lack of 

premeditation”].) 

We also find it unnecessary that defendant actually testify in his own defense in 

order to enjoy McCoy’s protection. The People have provided no authority establishing 

that defendant’s failure to testify divested him of his fundamental right to maintain 
13

innocence as the objective of his defense.8 Authorities discussing the “reasonableness” 

of counsel’s defense strategy given the state of the evidence miss the mark.9 (See, e.g., 

People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 728-729 [counsel not ineffective for pursuing 

lack of premeditation instead of innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence].) 

Whether defendant has been deprived of his fundamental right to maintain innocence as 

the object of his defense (a right founded in autonomy) does not turn on the 

reasonableness of counsel’s conduct. (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at 

p. 833].) 

We conclude that defendant has established a violation of his right to decide the 

objective of his defense under McCoy, and because this violation constitutes structural 

error (McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. ___ [200 L.Ed.2d at p. 833]), reversal of his first 

degree murder conviction is required. The parties do not address McCoy’s application to 

the jury’s finding on the knife enhancement, but because the enhancement is premised 

upon defendant’s use of a knife in the commission of a felony (§ 12022, subd. (b)), i.e., 

the stabbing trial counsel conceded defendant committed, we conclude that McCoy

requires reversal of the enhancement finding as well. 

 

8 Nor do we think it should, as such divestiture would undermine defendant’s separately 

protected right to remain silent. (U.S. Const., 5th & 14th Amends.)

9

 Even if we were to assume a need for some credible evidence in the record supporting 

defendant’s requested defense (see People v. Frierson (1985) 39 Cal.3d 803, 812, 815, 

fn. 3 [because there was credible evidence, the court declined to decide “whether a 

defendant has a constitutional right to insist on the presentation of a defense which has no 

credible evidentiary support or on which no competent counsel would rely”]), here, there 

was such evidence. 
14

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

 KRAUSE , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 MAURO , J.