Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01072/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Earl Garland, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-1072-PHX-ROS (DKD)

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Michael Earl Garland's Motion for

Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. #22). In Garland's habeas petition, he challenged his aggravated

assault conviction, raising seven grounds for habeas relief (Doc. #1). In their Answer,

Respondents contended that six of the grounds are unexhausted, and that the other is without

merit (Doc. #18). Garland admitted that four of the grounds were not presented to the state

court for review. In addition, Respondents argued that two grounds were presented to the

state courts as state law claims, and are therefore not reviewable by this Court. Finally,

Respondents contended that Garland's only exhausted claim, that trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to call an alibi witness, is without merit because counsel's decision was based upon

a tactical consideration. The facts supporting Garland's conviction are summarized in the

court of appeals' memorandum decision, and recited in the undersigned's February 16, 2005

Report and Recommendation, in which the Court recommended that Garland's petition be

denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #21).

Case 2:03-cv-01072-ROS Document 33 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court agrees with this argument, as more fully explained in the Report and

Recommendation.

2

Garland's claims, which are discussed more fully in the Report and Recommendation,

address the constitutionality of inconsistent verdicts, an alleged violation of state speedy trial

rules, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims (one of which was procedurally defaulted

and the other the Court found was a tactical decision and not subject to review).

- 2 -

Respondents contend in their opposition to Garland's request for an evidentiary

hearing that (1) Garland did not exercise diligence in developing the state court record; (2)

all but one of his claims are procedurally defaulted;1

 and (3) that, in any event, because there

are no factual disputes, a review of his habeas petition can be accomplished by examination

of the state court record. The Court agrees. Garland did not request an evidentiary hearing

in either of his two post-conviction petitions (Doc. #28, Exh A, C). As a result of his lack

of diligence, the Court is precluded from holding an evidentiary hearing absent a showing

by Garland of either a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive; facts that could not

have been previously discovered; or facts sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that but for a constitutional error, no reasonable jury would have convicted him of

the aggravated assault. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Garland has made no such showing.

In addition, Garland's grounds for habeas relief2

 are without merit. Reliance on the

state court record, which Respondents have submitted with their opposition to Garland's

motion, is sufficient for the District Court to review the Report and Recommendation. No

evidentiary hearing is warranted or necessary. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING Garland's Motion for an Evidentiary

Hearing (Doc. #22).

DATED this 27th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01072-ROS Document 33 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2