Terhune
Richmond v. Terhune
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David P. Richmond appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here.
The district court correctly rejected Richmond’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Richmond has never substantiated his assertion that either Nor-guard’s or Haight’s testimony would have exonerated him, and evidence in the record contradicts his assertion. Thus, he cannot satisfy the strict standard the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act imposes before it permits a court to allow an evidentiary hearing. 1 The evidence on the record does not establish that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call either witness.
As for counsel’s failure to move to suppress the gun, the record provides no basis for concluding that counsel’s decision was unreasonable. Accordingly, Richmond has failed to meet the first prong of Strickland v. Washington: 3 deficient performance. Thus, we need not reach Strickland’s second prong, on which the district court based its decision: prejudice.