With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has ever visited him to discuss his case; and that (4) he informed his lead counsel to withdraw his appeal. As we stated earlier, the record directly contradicts each of these claims. Thus, the State’s assertion that these letters establish Mr. Comer’s competence and obviate the need for a hearing is meritless. We also reject the State’s argument that, in deciding whether a hearing is necessary, we should presume that Mr. Comer is competent to waive further federal review based on a state court’s determination, thirteen years ago, that he was competent to stand trial. To be sure, a state court’s determination on competency to waive further legal remedies may trigger a presumption of correctness. See Demosthenes v. Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 734-35, 110 S.Ct. 2223, 109 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990) (<HOLDING>). But the presumption does not apply here

A: holding state rule barring review of postconviction petitioners claims where petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation is adequate procedural ground on which to bar federal habeas review
B: holding that a habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief from a state courts determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney and threatening to put a contract on his attorneys life
C: holding that state courts determination that the petitioner was competent to waive his right to pursue further postconviction review of his claims was a factual one and therefore presumed correct under the federal habeas corpus statute
D: holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review
C.