Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03307/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03307-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L . J 

United States C01. ~ of Appeal, 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FREDERICK MARTIN, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

Tenth Cb;uit 

FEB 2 4. 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No . 92-3307 

(D. Kansas) 

V. ) 

) 

DAVID R. MCKUNE, RAYMOND ROBERTS, ) 

and ROBERT T . STEPHAN, ) 

) 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3226-S ) 

Respondent-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The district court dismissed, as an abuse of the writ, 

Frederick Martin's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Martin appeals, contending 

that his petition was not an abuse of the writ, that he should 

* 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 Ci r. R. 36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 1 
have been granted an evidentiary hearing, and that the district 

court erred in failing to recuse due to bias. 

I. 

BACKGROUND 

A. Chronological Background. 

In 1986 Martin was convicted in Kansas state court of murder, 

kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm, and was 

sentenced to consecutive life sentences. On direct appeal his 

convictions were affirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court. State v. 

Martin, 740 P.2d 577 (Kan. 1987). 

In September, 1987, Martin filed his first federal habeas 

petition. On December 15, 1987, the district court dismissed the 

petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Martin v. 

Maschner, No. 87-3273, 1987 U.S . Dist. LEXIS 12206 (D. Kan . Dec . 

15, 1987). Martin timely appealed to this court on December 24, 

1987, and on October 26, 1989, we reversed and remanded for 

consideration on the merits. Martin v. Maschner, No . 87-2893 

(10th Cir. Oct. 26, 1989). 

On January 8, 1991, the district court issued its opinion 

addressing Martin's claims on the merits and denying relief. 

Martin v. Roberts, No. 87-3273, 1991 U. S . Dist. LEXIS 232 (D. Kan. 

Jan. 8, 1991) . Martin again appealed to this court. We affirmed 

the district court in an opinion filed on June 1, 1992 . Martin v. 

Roberts, No. 91-3028, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 13086 (10th Cir. June 

1, 1992). 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 2 
Martin filed his second federal habeas action on July 7, 

1990, while his first petition was under consideration by the 

district court on remand from this court. Thus, both Martin's 

first and second federal habeas actions were pending in the 

district court for the six month period from July 9, 1990, to 

January 8, 1991. 

After we affirmed, on June 1, 1992, the district court's 

judgment denying relief in the first habeas proceeding, the 

district court, on June 18, 1992, ordered Martin to show cause why 

his second petition should not be dismissed as an abuse of the 

writ. The state raised that defense in its answer, filed October 

2, 1990. Martin responded on June 25, 1992. On July 9, 1992, the 

district court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order, and a 

judgment, dismissing Martin's second petition as an abuse of the 

writ. On July 30, 1992, the district court denied Martin's motion 

to reconsider, and this appeal followed. 1 

1 During the pendency of Martin's first federal habeas 

petition, Martin pursued two collateral proceedings in state 

court. He first filed a motion for a new trial based on a claim 

of newly discovered evidence, and the denial of his motion to 

subpoena jurors. The district court denied the motion and the 

Kansas Supreme Court affirmed on December 8, 1989. (See recitation of proceedings in state court in Martin v. State, No. 64,151 

(Kan. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 1990), attached to Martin's second federal 

petition) . On December 30, 1988, during the pendency of the new 

trial motion proceeding, Martin commenced another postconviction 

proceeding, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507, in which he 

raised 15 grounds for relief. The state district court held an 

evidentiary hearing on only one claim: ineffective assistance of 

counsel, and denied relief on that issue on or about July 6, 1989. 

All other claims were held to be procedurally barred for not 

having been raised on direct appeal . That decision was appealed 

to the Kansas Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court on 

or about March 2, 1990. The Kansas Supreme Court denied 

certiorari on or about June 2, 1990 . Thereafter, on July 9, 1990, 

Martin filed his second federal habeas petition. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 3 
B. Issues Raised in the First and Second Petitions. 

For purposes of comparison, the issues raised by Martin in 

his two federal petitions are as follows: 

FIRST FEDERAL PETITION 

ISSUES RAISED IN AND DECIDED 

BY THE DISTRICT COURT: 

1. Sufficiency of the evidence. 

2. Double jeopardy. 

3. Jurisdiction on kidnapping 

charge. 

4. Error in preliminary hearing 

and arraignment. 

5. Failure to comply with 

discovery request Denial 

of due process. 

6. Denial of right to 

confrontation. 

7. Failure to rule on motions . 

8. Erroneous jury instructions 

(Nos. 8, 10), resulting in 

unfair trial. 

9 . Illegal sentence. 

10. Denial of right to counsel 

on appeal -- (ineffective 

assistance). 

11. Judicial bias -- motion to 

recuse. 

ISSUES RAISED IN AND DECIDED 

BY THIS COURT: 

1. Confrontation. 

2. Erroneous jury instruction (No. 8) -- Denial 

of Fourteenth Amendment 

requirement that state 

prove every element. 

3. Double jeopardy. 

4. Ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel. 

5. Denial of right to 

counsel on appeal --

Denial of oral argument. 

6 . Judicial bias. 

SECOND HABEAS PETITION 

ISSUES RAISED IN DISTRICT COURT AND IN THIS COURT IN THIS APPEAL: 

1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (allegedly different 

grounds). 2. Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (allegedly 

different grounds). 

3. Failure of the state trial court to make separate findings 

of fact and conclusions of law on each of the 15 grounds for 

relief presented in Martin's postconviction proceeding. 4. Failure of the state court judge to recuse himself after 

being called to testify in Martin's postconviction proceeding 

over which the judge was presiding. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 4 
s. Denial by the state court of a free copy of Martin's trial 

transcripts to use in his postconviction proceedings. 

ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL 

1. Error in dismissing for abuse of the writ. 

2. Error in not granting an evidentiary hearing. 

3. Error in failing to recuse on the ground of bias. 

II. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Should the District Court Have Sua Sponte Consolidated 

Martin's First and Second Petition? Should the Second 

Petition have been Treated as an Amendment to the 

First? 

In Martin's statement of the case on appeal he states that 

his second petition was filed while the first one was still 

pending in the district court, and that the district court did not 

consolidate the two petitions. Later in his argument, Martin 

alleges that the district court abused its discretion in an 

unspecified way -- presumably by delaying action on the second 

petition until a decision was issued in the first, then dismissing 

the second petition as abusive. Before the district court Martin 

briefly argued in his "Suggestions in Support" of his motion, to 

reconsider the dismissal of his action, filed on July 17, 1992, 

that his first petition had not been adjudicated when the second 

was filed. However, he did not and does not pursue the subject. 

It is not listed as an issue on appeal, and it was apparently 

directed at the topic of successive, not abusive, petitions below. 

Regardless, we feel obliged to address the matter as a 

threshold issue. As outlined above, the district court dismissed 

Martin's first federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust his 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 5 
state remedies. That dismissal was expressly stated to be without 

prejudice to Martin's refiling his petition after he completed his 

postconviction proceedings in state court. However, Martin chose 

instead to appeal the district court's decision to this court, 

resulting in a reversal and remand, thus keeping the first 

petition alive. Martin then filed his second petition while his 

first was pending in the district court on remand. Neither the 

second petition itself nor Martin's subsequent motions and other 

pleadings filed with respect to that petition remotely suggest 

that the petition was intended as an amendment or supplement to 

the first. See,~, Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1169 

(10th Cir. 1991) (supplement to petition), cert. denied, 112 S. 

Ct. 1213 (1992). Nor did Martin at any time file a motion seeking 

to amend his first petition with the second, or consolidate the 

two. 

Thus, Martin declined in two different ways, entirely within 

his power, to proceed with a single petition: he appealed the 

first dismissal rather than simply refiling anew when all his 

claims were explored and ready to present; and he did not seek to 

amend, supplement, or consolidate when both petitions were pending 

in the district court. 

In the circumstances the district court was not required sua 

sponte to treat Martin's two separate habeas petitions as one. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 6 
B. Abuse of the Writ. 2 

A federal court may dismiss a second or successive petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus if it "fails to allege new or 

different grounds for relief .. . or if new and different grounds 

are alleged" and the court finds that the petitioner's failure "to 

assert those grounds in a prior petition constitutes an abuse of 

the writ." Rules Governing Section 2254, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, 

Rule 9(b). A writ is abusive "unless the petitioner can show 

cause for the failure to raise the claim in an earlier habeas 

petition, and prejudice therefrom .. [or] if he can show that 

failure to hear his claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage 

of justice . " Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1171 (10th Cir. 

1991 ) (citing Mccleskey v . Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991 )) , 

cert . denied, 112 S. Ct . 1213 (1992) . 3 

"Cause," for purposes of applying the cause and prejudice 

test, "'requires a showing of some external impediment preventing 

counsel from constructing or raising the claim.'" Andrews v. 

Deland, 943 F . 2d at 1171 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 

492 (1986) ) . See also Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S . Ct . 2546 

(1991); Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 s. Ct. at 1472 ("For cause to 

exist, the external impediment, whether it be government 

2 There is no issue regarding procedural bar. The last state 

court to consider the issues raised on appeal here was the Kansas 

Court of Appeals. It addressed these issues on the merits. 

Martin v . State, No. 64,151 (Kan. Ct . App. Mar. 2, 1990). See 

generally Gee v. Shillinger, 979 F.2d 176 (10th Cir. 1992). 

3 Martin does not pursue a claim of fundamental miscarriage of 

justice in any significant way, and the exception clearly would 

not apply. See Herrera v. Collins, 61 U.S.L.W. 4108 (U . S. Jan. 

25, 1993). Thus, we need not further address the subject. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 7 
interference or the reasonable unavailability of the factual basis 

for the claim, must have prevented petitioner from raising the 

claim." (emphasis added)); Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 222 

(1988). 

[T]he question is whether petitioner possessed, or by 

reasonable means could have obtained, a sufficient basis 

to allege a claim in the first petition and pursue the 

matter through the habeas process, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

Rule 6 (Discovery); Rule 7 (Expansion of Record); Rule 8 

(Evidentiary Hearing). The requirement of cause in the 

abuse of the writ context is based on the principle that 

petitioner must conduct a reasonable and diligent 

investigation aimed at including all relevant claims and 

grounds for relief in the first federal habeas petition. 

Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 S. Ct . at 1472 (emphasis original in part, 

added in part). These rules apply to petitioners appearing prose 

or through counsel. See Worthen v. Kaiser, 952 F.2d 1266, 1267 

(10th Cir. 1992); Rodriguez v. Maynard, 948 F.2d 684, 687 (10th 

Cir. 1991). 

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. 

To establish ineffectiveness of counsel for constitutional 

purposes the petitioner must show both that his attorney's 

perfonnance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and 

that the petitioner suffered prejudice of constitutional 

dimensions as a result. Thus, the criminal defendant "must show 

'that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant 

of a fair trial, a trial whose result is unreliable,'" or the 

proceeding fundamentally unfair. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 61 

U.S.L.W. 4155 (U.S. Jan. 25, 1993) (quoting Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). See Andrews v. Deland, 943 

F.2d at 1193 (quoting Tapia v . Tansy, 926 F.2d 1554, 1564 (10th 

-8-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 8 
Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 115 (1991)). See also United 

States v. Treff, 924 F.2d 975, 979-80 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. 2272 (1991); Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 625-26 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

Martin alleges in his appeal brief in this case that his 

trial counsel in state court was ineffective because: 

(1) [H]e did not submit any pretrial motions, and that 

if the prosecutions complete file was turned over to him 

to review, under the alleged "open file policy", he did 

not seek out those items specifically requested by the 

appellant, in his prose discovery motions, (2) he did 

not request or make copies of anything in the 

prosecutions file, but relied on the prosecution to 

provide the said items, as Ordered by the Court, (3) he 

did not interview any prospective or potential 

witnesses, for the defense or prosecution, although he 

may have talked to "some policemen on the phone", (4) he 

did not travel to the alleged crime scene(s), in Kansas 

or Missouri, (5) he did not seek out any "expert 

opinions" to challenge the prosecutions scientific 

evidence on fingerprints, ballistics, the luminal 

testing or the autopsy, and (6) he did not accept the 

offered services of a Kansas City, Missouri investigator 

nor did he do any investigation himself. This admitted 

lackadaisical approach to the appellants defense denied 

the appellant the honest, genuine and loyal 

representation that would meet the Sixth Amendment 

standard. 

Appellant's Opening Brief at unnumbered pp. 3-4. 

Such allegations are, on their face, matters which Martin 

either knew at the time of his state court trial in 1986, "or by 

reasonable meansw could have learned prior to filing his first 

federal habeas petition more than a year later, on December 15, 

1987. Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 s. Ct. at 1472. Indeed, Martin 

makes no argument that he was prevented by some external 

impediment from conducting a "reasonable and diligent 

investigation aimed at including" the issue of his trial counsel's 

ineffectiveness, on the factual basis outlined above, in his first 

-9-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 9 
petition. There is no argument that the information was 

unavailable, for instance; and considering how active Martin was 

in his own defense, it is not possible to believe that he was not 

acutely aware of the matters listed. 

The same can be said for Martin's very general complaints 

about counsel on appeal. Mostly Martin relies on the fact that 

about the time of his first postconviction proceeding, instituted 

after his first federal habeas petition was filed, a lawyer 

advised him to change the label on his claims from denial of 

counsel -- by which it was first presented to the Kansas Supreme 

Court, then to us -- to ineffective assistance of counsel. No 

showing is made by Martin that the factual basis for his 

dissatisfaction with appellate counsel was not known to him at the 

time of his appeal or not reasonably discoverable prior to filing 

his first federal habeas petition. 

Thus, we conclude that these claims are an abuse of the writ 

as the district court held. 4 

2. Failure of State Trial Court to Make Findings and 

Conclusions, to Furnish a Free Transcript, and to 

Recuse in Martin's Second State Postconviction 

Proceeding. 

Martin correctly alleges that his claims of error stemming 

from his second state postconviction proceeding were not in 

existence at the time of his first federal habeas petition and, 

thus, could not be an abuse of the writ. However, whether or not 

state law is complied with as to such matters as findings and 

4 Alternatively, Martin's ineffectiveness claims are barred as 

successive. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963); 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 

-10-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 10 
conclusions, transcripts in collateral proceedings, and recusals 

of the nature described here, is not a proper claim for federal 

review. See Medina v. California, 112 S. Ct. 2572 (1992); Estelle 

v. McGuire, 112 S. Ct. 475 (1991): 

"[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors 

of state law." Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. , , 110 

S. Ct. 3092, 3102, 111 L. Ed.2d 606 (1990); see also 

Pulley v . Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41, 104 S. Ct. 871, 874-

75, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984) . ... In conducting habeas 

review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a 

conviction violated the Constitution. laws. or treaties 

of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .... 

Estelle v. McGuire, 112 S. Ct. at 480 (emphasis added) (citing 

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U. S . 19, 21 (1975) (per curiam)). Thus, while 

we review for the constitutional protection of due process we do 

not exercise supervisory authority over the state courts. See 

Nichols v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 1250, 1253 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 490 U. S. 1112 (1989) .

5 

Accordingly, although the district court erroneously 

dismissed these claims on grounds of abuse of the writ, we 

conclude that they must be dismissed because no constitutional 

issue is raised. 

C. Evidentiary Hearing. 

Nothing about Martin's claims in this second proceeding 

requires an evidentiary hearing. See Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 112 

5 For example, there is no constitutional right to a free 

transcript in postconviction proceedings. See,~, Buford v. 

Henderson, 524 F.2d 147, 150 - 51 (2d Cir. 1975); Jackson v. Turner, 

442 F.2d 1303, 1305 (10th Cir. 1971). 

-11-

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 11 
---------------------------------------------

s. Ct. 1715, 1717-18 (1992 ) ; Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d at 1185 

(evidentiary hearing not required on "cause and prejudice" ) . 

D. Recusal. 

In our opinion addressing Martin's first petition we noted 

and rejected Martin's attacks on the impartiality of the district 

court, and we do so here . The district court did not err in 

denying Martin's motion to recuse . See R. Vol . I at 12 ( "Order," 

filed October 2, 1990) . 

III. 

CONCLUSION 

Martin's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

for a certificate of probable cause are GRANTED. For the reasons 

stated, the judgment of the district court dismissing the petition 

for habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-12-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3307 Document: 010110176456 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 12