Demetrius Carey v. Department of Corrections, 57 F.4th 985

In 2005, 14-year-old Demetrius Carey was indicted for premeditated and/or felony murder and armed robbery; the indictment alleged use of a firearm that would reclassify and enhance sentences.
At the charging conference defense counsel requested instructions on all lesser-included offenses after the prosecution requested instructions on second-degree murder with a firearm and manslaughter with a firearm; counsel also requested lesser robbery instructions.
The jury convicted Carey of second-degree murder and robbery but answered no to all firearm enhancement interrogatories for both offenses.
Carey moved for a new trial and later filed multiple Florida Rule 3.850 motions; in his third motion he argued (1) trial counsel was ineffective for requesting lesser-included offense instructions and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his murder conviction.
State courts denied relief; a federal habeas petition was denied by the district court, which found the insufficient-evidence claim procedurally barred and concluded, after applying Martinez, that counsel’s lesser-included request did not prejudice Carey.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding counsel’s request for lesser-included instructions was reasonable (no deficient performance) and that the insufficient-evidence claim was barred as an impermissible successive state 3.850 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel performed deficiently by requesting lesser-included offense instructions	Carey: requesting those instructions was objectively unreasonable and misleading because the crimes were undisputedly committed with a firearm; any benefit was illusory	State: lesser-included instructions were legally required (some necessarily included) and requesting them was reasonable strategy to avoid harsher reclassification/enhancement	Held: Counsel was not deficient; decision was a reasonable strategy and not unsound trial performance
Whether Carey can federalize his insufficient-evidence claim	Carey: merits should be considered despite procedural posture	State: claim was barred as an impermissible successive Rule 3.850 motion (no good cause)	Held: Barred—state court relied on successiveness, an adequate and independent state ground, precluding federal review

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance standard)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (Eighth Amendment limits mandatory life sentences for juveniles)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (excuses procedural default where initial-review counsel ineffective or absent)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (discusses risks and benefits of lesser-included instructions)
Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (jury doubts tending toward conviction risk)
Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (look-through doctrine for unexplained state-court affirmances)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and plain-statement principles)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (plain-statement rule clarified)
Wimberly v. State, 498 So. 2d 929 (Fla.; necessarily included lesser offenses must be given when requested)
Sanders v. State, 944 So. 2d 203 (Fla.; distinguishes necessarily included and permissive lesser offenses)