Opinion ID: 222088
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to prepare Dr. Saslow

Text: Greenway contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing adequately to prepare Dr. Saslow because counsel had not done enough background investigation. Greenway claims counsel did not have sufficient background information to provide Dr. Saslow before he testified. Yet Greenway does not allege what specific facts or information counsel should have provided to Dr. Saslow. Dr. Saslow's testimony related principally to his own testing and interviews of Greenway. Dr. Saslow testified that he was given the information garnered by the defense investigation concerning Greenway's background, but he testified that his conclusions concerning Greenway's mental status and mental functioning were predicated primarily on the psychological tests he performed. Greenway has never alleged, much less demonstrated, what more counsel should have known or discovered. Greenway's cursory and vague claim cannot support habeas relief. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.1994) (Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.). For the reasons stated, we conclude that the state court was not objectively unreasonable in denying Greenway's claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence, for failing to call Dr. David to testify at the sentencing hearing, and for failing properly to prepare Dr. Saslow. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of those claims.