Maurice Carter v. Mike Parris, 910 F.3d 835

On June 2, 2007 deputies found Maurice Carter in a car with a 13‑year‑old (C.C.), and observed what they believed to be marijuana and rolling papers in plain view.
Carter consented to a car search; deputies discovered a locked box disguised as a dictionary in the backseat, opened it, and found sexually explicit photos of C.C.; further searches of Carter’s apartment and computer yielded more images and admissions.
Carter was charged with child rape, criminal exposure to HIV, sexual exploitation of a minor, and marijuana possession; he pled guilty but preserved a certified issue challenging the vehicle/lockbox search.
At the suppression hearing two county judges denied suppression, citing several grounds including the vehicle exception; the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed some search claims but declined to consider others.
Carter filed a federal habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to press the best suppression arguments (scope of consent; inventory exception; narrow certified question).
The Sixth Circuit held Carter could not show prejudice because deputies had probable cause to search the vehicle, which extended to the locked container, so the evidence was admissible regardless of the argued theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not arguing consent scope and inventory exception to suppress lockbox evidence	Carter: counsel should have argued consent limited to the car (not the lockbox) and that the inventory exception did not apply; suppression would have excluded downstream evidence	State: deputies had probable cause to search the vehicle based on visible marijuana; probable cause extends to containers within the vehicle so the lockbox search was lawful	Denied — no prejudice: probable cause justified searching the lockbox regardless of consent or inventory arguments
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for presenting a certified question allegedly too narrow	Carter: certified question precluded full review of vehicle/lockbox search issues	State: certified question led to an appellate proceeding; raising additional permutations would not change the merits because probable cause justified the search	Denied — no prejudice: even if framed differently, appeal would not have succeeded; no presumption of prejudice applies because Carter was not deprived of the appellate process

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (ineffective assistance standard discussion)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (Fourth Amendment claims and Strickland prejudice requirement)
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (probable cause to search vehicle extends to containers)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (search of vehicle and containers when probable cause exists)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory-search principles)
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (containers in vehicle subject to search when probable cause exists)
United States v. Burnett, 791 F.2d 64 (6th Cir.) (visible contraband justifies search of vehicle and containers)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (habeas standard and deference to state court rulings)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (when prejudice may be presumed for appellate counsel failures)