Opinion ID: 2511886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mr. gardner's first state petition for post-conviction relief is denied

Text: ¶ 12 Mr. Gardner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state district court. [32] The district court ruled that Mr. Gardner had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to give Dr. Heinbecker adequate time to test and evaluate Mr. Gardner and his appellate counsel failed to research and brief issues. [33] So, in 1991 the district court ruled that Mr. Gardner was entitled to a new penalty hearing and a new appeal. [34] ¶ 13 But when the State appealed and Mr. Gardner cross-appealed, we vacated the trial court's judgment. [35] We first held that six of Mr. Gardner's claims for relief could have been raised in his direct appeal but were not, so we declined to reach their merits. [36] This left two issues that we did reach: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal; and (2) error in the habeas [corpus] proceeding in not appointing an investigator and an expert witness at state expense to assist Gardner in prosecuting his petition. [37] ¶ 14 First, we summarily rejected three of Mr. Gardner's ineffective assistance claims and rejected three others after reaching the merits. [38] The ineffective assistance claim relevant to the current appealthat trial counsel was ineffective in failing to provide Dr. Heinbecker adequate time to examine Mr. Gardner psychologicallywas one of the bases for the district court's vacation of Gardner's death sentence and grant of a new penalty hearing. [39] The district court held that because Dr. Heinbecker was given inadequate time to prepare, Mr. Gardner was deprived of a satisfactory mental health evaluation that could show evidence of possible organic brain damage or other mitigating information. [40] But we held that it was Gardner's burden, in the [post-conviction] proceeding, to adduce what favorable evidence could have been presented in his behalf if Dr. Heinbecker had been given more time to prepare, and that [i]n fact, Dr. Heinbecker did not indicate that he might have produced any new evidence. [41] Because Mr. Gardner proved no prospect of any other information of mitigating evidence, we held that Mr. Gardner was not prejudiced by defense counsels' failure to provide more time to Dr. Heinbecker to prepare. [42] ¶ 15 Second, Mr. Gardner argued that he was entitled to state funds for expert witnesses and an investigator to aid him in his post-conviction proceedings and that denial of these funds denied him the right to the effective assistance of counsel, due process, meaningful access to the courts, and equal protection under the law. [43] We first held that no statute at the time even guaranteed Mr. Gardner the right to state-funded counsel for his post-conviction proceeding, much less to state-compensated experts and investigators. [44] We then held that there might be extraordinary cases in which a petitioner for [post-conviction relief] might be entitled under the Utah Constitution to state-compensated counsel, expert witnesses, or investigators, but that Mr. Gardner was not so entitled because he ha[d] not shown that he could not adequately pursue his [post-conviction] claims without appointed investigators and expert witnesses. [45] Important to this holding was our finding that Dr. Heinbecker's testimony failed to show any possibility that further testing would have shown any mitigating facts. [46] We concluded that Mr. Gardner was not entitled to a new penalty hearing or appeal, and we vacated the district court's judgment. [47] Our decision issued in 1994; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1995. [48]