Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-11624-GAO.
March 16, 2005
ORDER
Upon review of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the respondent's answer and memorandum in opposition, and the records of state court proceedings, I conclude that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted and the petition is hereby dismissed.
The state court adjudication did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Nor did the Massachusetts Appeals Court base its decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.Id. § 2254(d)(2). The defendant's trial counsel did in fact explore the witnesses' potential motive to lie, including the petitioner's infidelity, and counsel's strategic decision not to delve into the petitioner's alcohol use, verbal abuse towards family members, and beating of his son, hardly fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-90 (1984).
The petition lacks merit and is DISMISSED.
It is SO ORDERED.