basis for his claim. Since Mr. Smith failed to develop the factual basis for his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, an evidentiary hearing will not be held unless both elements of Section 2254(e)(2) are met. Mr. Smith claims that he was unfit to stand trial.and that appellate counsel should have presented that claim on his direct appeal. It is well-established that a defendant’s due process is violated if the prosecution tries him when he is not competent to stand trial. Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992). Finding, however, that Mr. Smith was unfit to stand trial does not show that he was innocent of the underlying offense as required by Section 2254(e)(2)(9). See Pitsonbarger v. Gramley, 103 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), judgment vacated,—U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 37, 139
holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing holding that when a petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim but the state court denies such a hearing entitlement to a federal court hearing is analyzed pursuant to preaedpa law rather than the standards set out in  2254e2 holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel