(claim that someone else confessed to the murder not
cognizable in habeas proceeding absent constitutional
violation). There is no constitutional requirement that a
factual basis be established on the record before a guilty
plea is accepted, Meyers v. Gillis, 93 F.3d 1147, 1148,
1151 (3d Cir. 1996); Higgason v. Clark, 984 F.2d 203,
207-08 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct.
2974, 125 L.Ed.2d 672 (1993); Riggins v. McMakin,
935 F.2d 790, 794-95 (6th Cir. 1991). Hence, a claim
that there was an insufficient factual basis for a plea,
without more, does not provide a ground for habeas
corpus relief. Meyers v. Gillis, 93 F.3d at 1151. Too,
“[t]here is no constitutional right to withdraw a guilty
plea.” Freeman v. Muncy, 748 F. Supp. 423, 429 (E.D.
Va. 1990), appeal. dismissed, 934 F.2d 319 (4th Cir.
1991); Holtan v. Black, 838 F.2d 984, 986 n.4 (8th Cir.
1988) (“what may constitute a fair and just reason to
withdraw a plea is an issue of state law and is not
justiciable in a federal habeas claim.”); Siers v. Ryan, 773
F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025, 109
S.Ct. 1758, 104 L.Ed.2d 194 (1989).
A claim that petitioner’s counsel during federal or
state post-conviction relief proceedings was incompetent
or ineffective is not cognizable as a basis for habeas corpus
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i).
A “federal habeas court has no power to grant habeas
corpus relief because it finds that the state conviction is
against the ‘weight’ of the evidence....” Young v. Kemp,
760 F.2d 1097, 1105 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476
U.S. 1123, 106 S.Ct. 1991, 90 L.Ed.2d 672 (1986);
Robinson v. Scully, 683 F. Supp. 941, 943 (S.D.N.Y.
1988). Habeas relief is available only “if it is found that
upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational
trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979); Singer v. Court of Common
Pleas, 879 F.2d 1203 (3d Cir. 1989).
Sentencing is generally a matter of state law and
“cannot justify the federal intervention of habeas corpus
relief.” Ervin v. Beyer, 716 F. Supp. 163, 165 (D.N.J.
1989).
Sufficiency of evidence “for purposes of instructing
the jury is solely a matter of state law” “and does not
present a cognizable issue on habeas review.” Bush v.
Stephenson, 669 F. Supp. 1322, 1327 (E.D.N.C. 1986),
aff’d, 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987); Kontakis v. Beyer,
19 F.3d 110 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1035, 115
S.Ct. 215, 130 L.Ed.2d 143 (1994) (“[n]othing in [Beck
v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d
392 (1980)] permits us to grant habeas relief when a state
court refuses to charge a jury that it may convict a
defendant for an offense when under state law the
evidence could not justify the conviction.”).XIII. DISCOVERY
Habeas petitioners are not entitled to discovery “as a
matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S.
899, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1796-97, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997).
In order to prevent abuse, prior court approval is required
before discovery can be obtained. Mayberry v. Petsock,
821 F.2d 179, 185 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 946,
108 S.Ct. 336, 98 L.Ed.2d 362 (1987). Discovery in
habeas cases is available in the district court’s discretion
only upon a showing of “good cause.” Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, R. 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254;
Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 512 U.S. 1230, 114 S.Ct. 2730, 129 L.Ed.2d
853 (1994); Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358
(9th Cir. 1993); Maynard v. Dixon, 943 F.2d 407, 412
(4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1110, 112 S.Ct.
1211, 117 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992). More than “bald
assertions and conclusory allegations” are necessary,
however, “to warrant the State to respond to discovery..
.” Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284, 301 (3d Cir.),
cert. denied, 502 U.S. 902, 112 S.Ct. 280, 116 L.Ed.2d
232 (1991); Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d at 185.
Indeed, a federal district court is required to permit
discovery in a habeas proceeding only “where specific
allegations before the court show reason to believe that
the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able
to demonstrate that he is confined illegally and is
therefore, entitled to relief... .” Harris v. Nelson, 394
U.S. 286, 300, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1091, 22 L.Ed.2d 281
(1969); Bracy v. Gramley, 117 S.Ct. at 1799. R. 6(a) does
not allow a petitioner to engage in a “fishing expedition.”
Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d at 1493.XIV. EVIDENTIARY HEARING
A determination of a factual issue by a state court
shall be presumed correct in a habeas corpus proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The petitioner is obligated to
rebut the presumption of correctness by clear and
convincing evidence. Id. If the petitioner “has failed to
develop the factual basis of a claim in” the state courts, the
district court may not hold an evidentiary hearing unless
the petitioner demonstrates that the claim relies upon a
new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to
collateral proceedings or that the claim relies on facts that
could not have been discovered through due diligence
and the facts would be sufficient to establish by clear and