The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results:
¶ 1 I concur, based on stare decisis, in the discussion dealing with ineffective assistance of counsel. See Walker v. State, 1997 OK CR 3 , 933 P.2d 327, 341-344 (Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Results).
¶2 I have reviewed Petitioner’s application, together with the argument and authority provided. In accordance with the criteria set out in Braun v. State, 1997 OK CR 26 , 937 P.2d 505, 511-514 , I concur with the Court’s decision that counsel’s performance was not deficient and the underlying substantive claims sought to be raised by petitioner are procedurally barred.
¶3 In addition, it should be noted the criteria set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for evaluating effectiveness of counsel has been further explained in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). Applying the Lockhart standard, the record is void of any evidence the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect or unreliable.
¶4 I also agree the request for an evi-dentiary hearing should be denied. Petitioner does not present any facts to support his request, only speculation that he might be able to discover something. This type of pleading does not even present a threshold showing, much less satisfy the burden of proof Petitioner must satisfy pursuant to *1009 Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (1995).