Opinion ID: 765712
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirements of 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e)(2)

Text: 18 Where a habeas petitioner has failed to develop a factual basis for his claim in state proceedings and requests the opportunity to do so in an evidentiary hearing before the district court, the petitioner must show that the claim relies on . . . a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence and. . . the facts underlying the claim would . . . establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e)(2). 19 Baja has asserted that the failure of trial counsel to explore and research the use of a diminished capacity defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must allege that (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Baja has not explained why the evidence needed to support his ineffective assistance claim could not have been developed during the course of the state proceedings. Furthermore, he has not offered any evidence or other rationale to suggest that he was prejudiced by Counsel's failure to offer a diminished capacity defense. Baja's petition falls far short of the substantial requirements contained in Section 2254(e)(2).