Under the extreme circumstances of this case, can a state court deny a Strickland claim on the merits without conducting an evidentiary hearing?

In Alabama, the charge of capital murder requires an intent to kill. Petitioner Willie Burgess, Jr., was charged with shooting Louise Crow in the course of a store robbery in Decatur, Alabama. At trial, defense counsel conceded Mr. Burgess killed Mrs. Crow but argued that the gun fired unintentionally. The forensic firearms community was aware at the time that the Titan .25 semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting had a design defect making it prone to unintentional discharge. Yet counsel failed to present a firearms expert to explain the design defect to the jury. Counsel also failed to present other readily available expert testimony that would have directly supported their theory that the shooting was unintentional. Counsel repeatedly informed the trial court, on the record, that they were unprepared for trial, and they presented no evidence at the guilt phase. Mr. Burgess was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Alabama law requires an evidentiary hearing where a post-conviction petitioner alleges a facially meritorious claim . In state post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Burgess raised a claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), that his trial counsel had failed to present compelling, readily available expert testimony that would likely have raised a reasonable doubt as to his guilt on the charge of capital murder, thereby precluding his eligibility for the death penalty. With respect to the pistol’s design defect, he specifically alleged 1) the substance of the expert testimony that should have been presented, 2) why that testimony would have mattered, 3) the fact that such testimony was available at the time of trial, and 4) the name of an expert who could have provided such testimony at his trial. As the Alabama courts have done in more than half of all capital postconviction cases over the last decade, the state courts denied Mr. Burgess’s Strickland claim on the merits without giving him an opportunity to present evidence at a hearing. Instead, the Alabama courts held that even if accepted as true, Mr. Burgess’s allegations would not warrant relief under Strickland because they were not specific enough. The question presented is this: Under the extreme circumstances of this case, can a state court deny a Strickland claim on the merits without conducting an evidentiary hearing?