Opinion ID: 2511886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the federal district court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismisses the remainder of mr. gardner's petition for writ of habeas corpus

Text: ¶ 37 The same day the federal district court decided Mr. Gardner's knowingly claim, it decided his other claims in a separate order. Making only minor changes to the magistrate judge's findings, the federal district court adopted those findings and also adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that Mr. Gardner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. [143] On the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to produce mitigation evidence, the court agreed with the magistrate judge's findings, but added clarification. [144] Mr. Gardner argued that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider that under Utah law, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances and that he ignored Utah's requirement that a jury imposing a death sentence be unanimous. [145] After reviewing the report, the district court found that the magistrate judge did take Utah law into consideration. [146] The district court also added that it considered Utah law when conducting its own de novo review of the report, and it concluded that [e]ven in light of the State's burden of establishing that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances and the requirement of unanimity, the court finds that Mr. Gardner has failed to show the necessary prejudice. [147] When addressing an earlier ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the federal district court noted that it did not need to address that claim's deficient-performance prong if it first concluded there was no prejudice. [148] Finding no prejudice here, it also did not address the deficient-performance prong of this ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [149] On April 5, 2007, the federal district court entered two final orders dismissing this and all other claims raised in Mr. Gardner's First Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus. [150]