Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05016/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

. '-

\ . 

UniJsJtes1⁄4~ cfippeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BILLY GENE MARSHALL, ) 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

DAN REYNOLDS; ROBERT H. 

Attorney General, 

) 

) 

HENRY,) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

SEP O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-5016 

(D.C. No. 90-C-492-B) 

( N. D • Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner-appellant Billy Gene Marshall appeals a district 

court order denying his consolidated petitions for habeas corpus. 

His petitions assert that federal habeas relief is necessary 

because two Oklahoma criminal sentences he received were enhanced 

by a prior Kansas conviction with alleged constitutional defects. 

We exercise jurisdiction and affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5016 Document: 010110084250 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
In Harris Y.!.. Reed, 109 s. Ct. 1038, 1043 (1989), the Supreme 

Court held that when the last state court rendering a judgment on 

a federal claim "clearly and expressly" states the judgment rests 

on a state procedural bar, then the procedural default bars our 

consideration of that claim in a habeas petition unless the 

petitioner shows "cause" and "prejudice." Here, the judgment of 

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, ruling on a consolidated 

appeal from a request for post-conviction relief in CFR-73-394 and 

CFR-74-728, held the doctrine of res judicata "barred [Marshall] 

from asserting any claims which could have been raised previously 

in his direct appeal." Claims raised in that collateral attack 

that could have been raised in Marshall's direct appeal include 

improper enhancement of the two Oklahoma convictions for robbery 

and perjury based on the prior Kansas conviction -- the same issue 

Marshall has raised in this petition for federal habeas relief. 

The state court judgment contains a plain statement of an 

adequate and independent finding of procedural default of 

Marshall's claims. Marshall has not demonstrated the requisite 

"cause" for failing to raise the sentencing enhancement in his 

direct appeal. Nor has he shown "prejudice" such that raising the 

enhancement would have changed the outcome of his appeal. 

Therefore, under Harris we are precluded from addressing 

Marshall's federal claims regarding the enhancement of his 

sentences. We AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-5016 Document: 010110084250 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2