PAUL W. GRIMM, District Judge.
Respondent has answered the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No.5) and petitioner has filed a Reply (ECF No. 8). After review of these papers, the court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011); see also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). For the reasons that follow the petition shall be denied.
Petitioner Darrick Moore ("Moore") was tried and convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on charges of attempted murder and related offenses. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 1 and 5. He was sentenced to serve 65 years on April 29, 2005. Id. Moore filed an appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and raised four claims:
1. Did the trial court err in unduly limiting Moore's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
2. Did the trial court deprive Moore of his right to move for modification of sentence by pre-judging the merits of any such request?
3. Must Moore's 20 year sentence for burglary, expressly made consecutive to the "sentences previously announced, " be made consecutive to the shortest sentence "previously" announced, 5 years for reckless endangerment?
4. Did the trial court plainly err in failing to correct the prosecutor's misstatement in opening argument that she represented the jurors and her thinly-veiled reference in closing argument to the defendant's failure to testify, and in denying Moore's motion for a new trial based on the prosecutor's arguments?
ECF NO. 5 at Ex. 2, p. 3.
In an unreported opinion filed on August 28, 2007, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed Moore's conviction. Id. at Ex. 5. Moore filed a self-represented petition for writ of certiorari alleging the Court of Special Appeals erred in holding that the oral pronouncement of his sentence by the trial court was not ambiguous. Id. at Ex. 6, p. 1. The Court of Appeals denied certiorari on December 7, 2007. Id. at Ex. 7.
On April 30, 2008, Moore filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Id. at Ex. 11. In his petition Moore claimed:
1. The oral pronouncement of the sentences imposed upon petitioner, as the transcript reflects, conflicts with the commitment record. Therefore, the sentences are unclear and must be resolved in petitioner's favor;
2. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an unconstitutional jury instruction on the element of intent thereby depriving petitioner of his 14th Amendment right to Due Process of Law;
3. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's failure to explain the difference between ...