is a decision for defense counsel. See United States v. Mays, 466 F.3d 335, 342 (5th Cir.2006) (characterizing the decision not to request a lesser offense jury instruction as "a strategic choice"); Tinsley v. Million, 399 F.3d 796, 808 (6th Cir.2005) (characterizing the decision not to request lesser offense jury instructions as "a permissible exercise of trial strategy"); Neal v. Acevedo, 114 F.3d 803, 806 (8th Cir.1997) (characterizing the decision not to request a lesser offense jury instruction as "reasonable trial strategy'); State v. Sheppard, 2740 Mont. 122, 890 P.2d 754, 757 (1995) (characterizing the decision not to request lesser offense jury instructions as "counsel's tactical decision" and "strategy'); State v. Edwards, 119 Ohio App.3d 106, 694 N.E.2d 534, 536-38 (1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Eckert, 203 Wis.2d 497, 553 N.W.2d
recognizing that it is within  our power to direct entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when vacating a greater offense if the commission of the lesser offense can be established from facts that the jury actually found citations omitted holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that the right to request lesser offense instructions is nonfundamental and reserved for counsels judgment holding that reviewing court in a proper case may modify a judgment of conviction below and affirm it as a conviction of a lesser degree of the offense charged or of a lesser crime included therein where the errors do not affect the conviction of the lesser offense  holding that the greater offense is  by definition the same for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it