Opinion ID: 429505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing

Text: 60 Finally, Tucker urges that the district court erred in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. In Thomas v. Zant, 697 F.2d 977, 986 (11th Cir.1983), we listed the factors to be considered in determining whether a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing: 61 [A] federal habeas petitioner must make a showing of two elements in order to obtain an evidentiary hearing ...: first, that a fact pertaining to his federal constitutional claim was not adequately developed at the state court hearing and that the fact was material ...; second, that failure to develop that material fact at the state proceeding was not attributable to petitioner's inexcusable neglect or deliberate bypass. 62 This standard requires habeas petitioners to point to specific facts, development of which would be material to a particular claim. Tucker fails to do so. Other than claiming that he was generally unable to present to the state court all the evidence necessary for a proper determination of his petition, Tucker suggests only two specific factual issues on which he was unable to present evidence. First, he claims that the district court denied his motion for discovery of case abstracts held by the Georgia Supreme Court and used in its sentence review procedure. This evidence would not be material because, as we hold above, the petitioner's ability to present cases to the court for it to consider in reviewing the proportionality of his death sentence is, as a matter of law, sufficient to meet the requirements of due process. The second fact that Tucker claims not to have been allowed to develop relates to the effectiveness of his counsel on direct appeal. Again, such facts could not be material because of our conclusion that any ineffectiveness of the petitioner's appellate counsel was not prejudicial. See supra, note 14. 63 For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's decision on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and REMAND with instructions that the district court grant the petitioner's request for a resentencing proceeding. 64 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC 65 Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: 66 A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, 67 IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall by reheard by this Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs.