State v. Coverdale, 1212005871A

In Dec. 2012 three men robbed occupants of a car; Coverdale was identified in photo lineups and arrested after police found victims' stolen cell phones in his apartment.
Indicted for multiple counts including four first-degree robberies, firearms offenses, conspiracy; trial resulted in convictions for three first-degree robberies, one second-degree robbery, four felony-firearm counts, and conspiracy.
Sentenced to an aggregate mandatory incarceration term (effective 21 years). Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Coverdale filed a timely motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to request a mid-deliberation lesser-included-offense instruction on Count I.
At trial, during jury deliberations the jury asked whether second-degree robbery could be submitted for Count I; the court would give that instruction only if a party requested it. Coverdale expressly instructed counsel not to request the lesser instruction (preferring an all-or-nothing strategy).
The Superior Court denied the postconviction motion, holding counsel’s refusal to request the instruction was a reasonable, client-directed strategic decision and therefore not constitutionally deficient under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 61(i)(3) bars Coverdale's ineffective-assistance claim	Rule 61(i)(3) does not bar because IAC claims cannot be raised on direct appeal	State argued procedural bar under Rule 61(i)(3)	Court: Not barred; IAC claims are exempt where they couldn’t be raised on direct appeal
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a lesser-included-offense instruction mid-deliberation	Coverdale: counsel’s failure prejudiced him; jury may have convicted of lesser offense if instructed	State: counsel followed Coverdale’s express instruction to reject the lesser instruction; strategic choice	Court: No deficiency — counsel made a reasonable, client-directed strategic decision
Whether counsel’s conduct prejudiced the outcome (Strickland prejudice prong)	Coverdale: omission had a "devastating effect" on outcome	State: no showing of reasonable probability of different result; strategy chosen to seek full acquittal on Count I	Court: Prejudice not shown; both prongs of Strickland not satisfied
Whether a court may give an unrequested lesser-included instruction over parties’ objections	Coverdale: implied that instruction should have been given to avoid conviction on greater charge	State: party autonomy rule prevents court from imposing unrequested lesser charge instructions	Court: Upheld party autonomy — court should not give unrequested lesser-included instruction

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
State v. Brower, 971 A.2d 102 (Del. 2009) (reaffirming Delaware’s party-autonomy rule on lesser-included instructions)
Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351 (Del. 1992) (defense controls request for lesser-included instructions; tactic is for parties)
Cox v. State, 851 A.2d 1269 (Del. 2003) (trial court ordinarily should not give unrequested lesser-included instructions)
Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (standards for evaluating counsel’s reasonableness and strategy)
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (discussion of lesser-included offense instructions and reasonable-doubt benefit)