Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05258/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Kenneth R. Marshall
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~ nited ~}es 1co~t ~ Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

KENNETH R. MARSHALL, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

JACK COWLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL) 

of the State of Oklahoma ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

,JUN 1 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5258 

(D. C. No. 88-C-638-E) 

( 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Marshall, a state prisoner, appeals the denial of habeas 

relief. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5258 Document: 010110118878 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 1 
> 

Mr. Marshall entered a guilty plea to first degree murder and 

was sentenced to life imprisonment. Mr. Marshall has exhausted 

his state remedies and is currently confined in an Oklahoma 

penitentiary. 

Mr. Marshall filed his prose application for habeas relief 

with the federal court and asserted five grounds for relief. Mr. 

Marshall's fifth ground, that he was incompetent due to alcoholism 

at the time of the homicide and that he was also incompetent at 

the time he entered his guilty plea, was not exhausted and Mr. 

Marshall candidly and correctly conceded this point and dismissed 

this issue. 

The district court referred this matter to the magistrate 

judge who examined the state court records. The magistrate judge 

issued his report, which we summarize as follows: 

1. Mr. Marshall's first contention was that his counsel 

misadvised him that he would be released from prison sooner if he 

pled guilty to murder one rather than second degree murder. The 

magistrate judge concluded as a matter of law that the mere 

allegation that counsel erroneously predicted the favorable 

consequences of a guilty plea does not entitle a petition to 

federal habeas relief. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 

(1977). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5258 Document: 010110118878 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 2 
2. Mr. Marshall contended the state trial court failed to 

follow the minimum requirements for accepting a guilty plea to 

murder one. The magistrate judge concluded the allegation that 

Mr. Marshall was not told premeditation was an essential element 

of first degree murder was not supported by the record. The state 

court record was reviewed and quoted in part showing facts to the 

contrary and that Mr. Marshall's plea was entered knowingly and 

voluntarily. 

3. Mr. Marshall's third contention was he had been denied 

ineffective assistance of counsel as counsel misapprehended the 

requirement of premeditation as an element of first degree murder. 

The magistrate judge reviewed the record and concluded counsel was 

"far from acting incompetently." 

4. Mr. Marshall's final contention was the state trial 

court was without jurisdiction as the state sentencing statute was 

in violation of the state constitution. The magistrate judge 

concluded that even if this was true, it was an issue of 

interpretation of state law and as such was not cognizable in a 

federal habeas case. See Tyrrell v. Crouse, 422 F.2d 852 (10th 

Cir. 1970). 

The district court considered the record and issues and 

adopted and affirmed the report and recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denied habeas relief. Order dated November 

8, 1990. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5258 Document: 010110118878 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 3 
Mr. Marshall, in his commendably succinct prose appeal, 

asserts the district court erred and raises essentially the same 

arguments presented to the district court. Mr. Marshall also 

requests an evidentiary hearing. 

We have considered the briefs of the parties and have 

examined the record on appeal. The state court record of the plea 

hearing shows a factual basis for the plea. Mr. Marshall shot the 

victim six times in the back of the head and intended to kill him; 

Mr. Marshall was fully advised of all of his rights; Mr. Marshall 

fully understood what he was doing when he entered his plea; and 

the plea was entered freely, voluntarily and with full knowledge. 

Moreover, there is no reason for the federal district court 

to hold an evidentiary hearing where the state court records 

provide all the necessary information for a satisfactory 

determination of the issues raised in the habeas petition. United 

States ex rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 669 (2d Cir. 1987). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5258 Document: 010110118878 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 4