Opinion ID: 509516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: denial of a post-conviction eeg examination

Text: 80 Harris contends the State of California's denial of his request for a post-conviction EEG examination was arbitrary and violated his right to due process under the fourteenth amendment. Because the State's action did not affect Harris' right to due process at his trial and sentencing, we must reject this argument. 81 In Harris' June 1982 Application for Order Permitting a Neurological Examination of Petitioner at San Quentin, etc. filed in the California Supreme Court, Harris' counsel applied for an order permitting an EEG examination of petitioner to enable petitioner to gather evidence to support his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to move for a pretrial neurological examination to confirm petitioner's organic brain damage. The state supreme court denied the request. 82 The record does not demonstrate that an EEG examination performed in 1982 would establish Harris' mental condition at the time of trial in 1979, or that it would aid a reviewing court in evaluating whether trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. Thus, the California Supreme Court's decision to deny Harris' request for a post-conviction EEG examination was not arbitrary or violative of due process.