Jihad Melvin v. Frank Perry, 664 F. App'x 281

Melvin was tried for first-degree murder and accessory after the fact based on his role driving, searching for, encouraging, and standing outside while Ridges shot and killed the victim; jury convicted on both counts.
Trial counsel moved to sever, arguing the charges were legally inconsistent; judge acknowledged inconsistency but denied severance and declined to give the Speckman instruction requiring the jury to convict of only one of mutually exclusive offenses; counsel agreed with the court’s remedial approach.
The trial court set aside judgment on the accessory-after-the-fact conviction and sentenced Melvin to life without parole; the NC Court of Appeals later vacated and ordered a new trial for plain error in failing to instruct per Speckman.
The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding plain-error reversal unwarranted given the overwhelming evidence of first-degree murder (Melvin I).
Melvin filed a state Motion for Appropriate Relief alleging ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to request the Speckman instruction; the MAR court rejected the claim under Strickland, finding no prejudice.
Federal habeas relief was denied by the district court; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the state court reasonably applied Strickland and that Melvin failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a Speckman instruction	Melvin: counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudiced him because a properly instructed jury might have convicted only of accessory after the fact, not murder	State: counsel’s conduct was reasonable; overwhelming evidence of murder means no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Court: State court reasonably applied Strickland; no prejudice shown
Whether failure to request the instruction justified relief under §2254(d)	Melvin: state adjudication unreasonably applied clearly established Strickland law	State: the MAR court’s Strickland analysis was not unreasonable under AEDPA deference	Court: AEDPA deference applies; petitioner didn’t meet the high standard for habeas relief
Whether plain-error vs. preserved-error standards on appeal caused prejudice	Melvin: counsel’s omission led to more deferential appellate review, harming his rights	State: even under the less-deferential standard, overwhelming evidence defeats claim	Court: No reasonable possibility of a different result even under preserved-error standard
Whether the jury’s conviction on both inconsistent offenses requires reversal	Melvin: inconsistent verdicts justified limiting or separate consideration	State: jury convicted after proper elements instruction; conviction stands absent reversible error	Court: No federal relief; state courts’ handling was reasonable under governing law

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-part test)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference in Strickland claims)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (§2254(d) "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" explained)
Speckman v. State, 391 S.E.2d 165 (N.C.) (jury must be instructed it may convict of only one of mutually exclusive offenses)
State v. Melvin, 707 S.E.2d 629 (N.C.) (North Carolina Supreme Court decision affirming convictions; plain-error analysis)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (state decision "contrary to" or "unreasonable application" standards)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (ineffective-assistance claim undermines adversarial process)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (prejudice defined as undermining reliability of outcome)