Evans v. Ryan
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered adopting Report and Recommendations re 34 Report and Recommendations. (Zierk, Marsha)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. 15-13767-RGS
PHILLIP POPE EVANS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
December 1, 2017
On June 12, 2011, Petitioner Phillip Pope Evans was convicted in the
Superior Court of manslaughter, armed assault with intent to kill, and
carrying a firearm without a license. He is currently serving a fifteen-totwenty-year sentence. On October, 26, 2015, Evans petitioned this court for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), alleging
that his trial counsel did not provide constitutionally required effective
assistance of counsel for having failed to consult and retain an expert in
adolescent brain development. Evans argues that such an expert would have
testified that given his age and intellectual development at the time of the
homicide his use of force in self-defense was reasonable. See Dkt #1 at 5; Dkt
#2 at 23. 1
I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal’s thorough Report and her
determination that Evans has failed to show that the Massachusetts Appeals
Court misapplied established Supreme Court precedent in concluding that
the assistance provided by Evans’ counsel was well within “the prevailing
professional norms.” Pina v. Maloney, 565 F.3d 48, 56 (1st Cir. 2009).
Consequently, her recommendation is ADOPTED and the petition is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
Petitioner is advised that any request for the issuance of a Certificate
of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 of the court’s Order denying
his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is also DENIED, the court seeing no
meritorious or substantial basis supporting an appeal.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns_____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Evans has not filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?