Arthur Garner v. B. Mayle

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Arthur Grady Garner (“Garner”) appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount additional facts except as necessary to explain the decision. We affirm.

Garner alleges that the district court abused its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on Garner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel purportedly failed to investigate facts which would have impeached the testimony of the informant, Arthur Ray. We disagree. As an initial matter, because trial counsel is now deceased, Garner has offered no direct evidence concerning the scope or quality of trial counsel’s investigation. Garner’s argument, therefore, is premised entirely on current counsel’s discovery of “new evidence” that was not presented to the jury. As the district court found, however, this evidence is either speculative or cumulative of the evidence that was admitted at trial. A…