Opinion ID: 566790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Evidentiary Hearing on Ineffective Assistance

Text: 38 of Counsel Claims 39 Tejada contends that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the district court should have, at the very least, granted him an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 13 The State responds--as the district court found--that the acts and omissions about which Tejada complains are within the realm of strategic or tactical decisions, which cannot be the basis for finding counsel ineffective, or are unsupported allegations, conclusory in nature and lacking factual substantiation. We agree. 40 A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he alleges facts which, if true, would warrant habeas relief. Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898, 899 (11th Cir.1990) (en banc); see also Futch v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir.1989) (evidentiary hearing warranted if material facts not adequately developed in district court or state habeas proceeding); Agan v. Dugger, 835 F.2d 1337, 1338 (11th Cir.1987). A petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, however, when his claims are merely 'conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics' or 'contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.'  Stano, 901 F.2d at 899; see also Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832, 834 (11th Cir.1991) (evidentiary hearing need not be conducted if it can be conclusively determined from the record that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel). In addition, when considering whether an evidentiary hearing should be held on habeas claims based on occurrences outside the record, no hearing is required if the allegations 'viewed against the record, either fail to state a claim for relief or are so palpably incredible or patently frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal.'  Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1158 (9th Cir.1989) (habeas case of federal prisoner) (quoting Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1985)). 41 To be granted an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Tejada needed to make allegations which, if true, would entitle him to relief. He has failed to do so. After considering Tejada's claims and reviewing the state trial court record, the post-conviction relief proceedings and the district court record, we conclude that Tejada received reasonably effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In so doing, we adopt with approval the findings of the district court on Tejada's failure to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective based upon Strickland 's two-pronged test. See Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. We also conclude that, because the evidence against Tejada is overwhelming, Tejada has not demonstrated that the alleged errors, if true, would have so prejudiced his defense that there [would be] a reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have been different if his counsel had not committed the alleged errors. See id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.