Opinion ID: 172597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preservation of the Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Mr. Fairchild is required to properly request an evidentiary hearing in the district court, because we ordinarily do not decide issues raised for the first time on appeal. See McLuckie v. Abbott, 337 F.3d 1193, 1200 n. 3 (10th Cir.2003). The district court rejected the request for an evidentiary hearing that appeared in Mr. Fairchild's habeas petition, which generically sought a hearing as to the Petition as a whole and particularly as to any issues which involve facts not apparent from the existing record and to any issues which involve facts disputed by the state. R., Vol. I, Doc. 15, at 104 (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed May 16, 2002). The district court held that Mr. Fairchild's petition failed to present the specific allegations necessary to determine whether a hearing could substantiate Mr. Fairchild's ineffective assistance claims and merit habeas relief. However, by the time the district court ruled on the habeas petition, Mr. Fairchild also had submitted a more specific motion for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See R., Vol. I, Doc. 20, at 1-2 (Renewed Mot. for Evidentiary Hr'g and Br. in Supp., filed June 8, 2002) (noting that [t]here is substantial evidence, not presented at trial, that indicates that Mr. Fairchild has suffered repeated head injuries and that a hearing would further show[] there was no informed tactical or strategic reason not to investigate, develop, and present this evidence). Yet the district court had denied it [b]ecause the parties have not completed their briefing of the legal issues and the record is not complete at this time, [so] the court cannot yet determine if an evidentiary hearing will be required. R., Vol. I, Doc. 21 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed July 11, 2002). We conclude that the combination of this motion and the request for an evidentiary hearing in the habeas petition was sufficient to alert the district court with adequate specificity to Mr. Fairchild's grounds for seeking an evidentiary hearing concerning ineffective assistance. Accordingly, in our view, Mr. Fairchild preserved his contention of error concerning the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing and it is properly before us.