Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03333/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kansas Parole Board
Appellee
Phill Kline
Appellee
Robert Marks
Appellant
Marilyn Scafe
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 26, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

ROBERT MARKS, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

V. 

MARILYN SCAFE; KANSAS 

PAROLE BOARD; PHILL KLINE, 

Attorney General of Kansas, 

Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 04-3333 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-3029-GTV) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-3333 Document: 010110642483 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 1
Robert Marks appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U .S.C. § 2254. The district court granted Mr. Marks a 

certificate of appealability on the question of whether his trial counsel was 

ineffective for not challenging the circumstances under which officers searched 

Mr. Marks' truck. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253 and affirm. 

As stated by the district court, this case is governed by the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 

110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). The 

Kansas state courts adjudicated Mr. Marks' claim on its merits, so, under AEDP A, 

we may only grant a writ of habeas corpus if the decision (I) "was contrary to, or 

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as 

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or (2) "was based on an 

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the 

State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l), (2). ''When applying these 

deferential AEDP A standards, we review the district court's legal analysis of the 

state court decision de novo." Saiz v. Ortiz, 392 F.3d 1166, 1176 (10th Cir. 2004) 

( quotation omitted). "[W]e focus on the result of the state court decision, not its 

reasoning." Id. 

Having reviewed the parties' arguments, the district court record, the state 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3333 Document: 010110642483 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 2
court record, and the applicable law, we cannot conclude that the decision of the 

Kansas Court of Appeals was contrary to or an unreasonable application of 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984 ). The judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's 

order dated July 28, 2004. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-3333 Document: 010110642483 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-3333 Document: 010110642483 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 4