Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03918/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03918-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Ray Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3918

___________

Kenneth Ray Martin, *

*

Defendant-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa. 

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Plaintiff-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2007

Filed: October 24, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Kenneth Ray Martin appeals the district court’s1

 order denying him relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Having received a certificate of appealability from the district

court, Martin alleges the district court erred in determining that Martin’s right to

effective assistance of counsel was not violated when his trial attorney failed to

investigate matters that came to light immediately before his trial. 

Appellate Case: 06-3918 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2007 Entry ID: 3365449
-2-

Martin has been before this court twice previously. First, he directly appealed

his conviction for drug offenses, contesting jury instructions issued by the trial court

and alleging his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirmed his conviction, declining

to address his ineffective-assistance claims on direct review. United States v. Martin,

274 F.3d 1208 (8th Cir. 2001). Next, Martin appealed the district court’s denial of his

§ 2255 motion as untimely, and we reversed, finding that Martin was entitled to

equitable tolling. United States v. Martin, 408 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2005). Now,

Martin’s ineffective-assistance claim is properly before our court, and we affirm the

judgment of the district court. 

We review de novo claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel as they

encompass mixed questions of law and fact. United States v. Davis, 406 F.3d 505,

508 (8th Cir. 2005). 

To succeed in his appeal, Martin must demonstrate that his trial counsel’s

failure to investigate late-unfolding evidence constituted professional performance

that “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and that the failure to investigate prejudiced his defense,

id. at 687. Both prongs of the familiar Strickland test must be satisfied to prevail on

a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. “If the defendant cannot prove prejudice,

we need not address whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” Williams v.

United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1014 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted).

Martin has failed to establish he suffered prejudice as a result of his trial

counsel’s failure to investigate. The alleged alibi witnesses Martin contends would

have undermined key government testimony had Martin’s trial attorney conducted a

more thorough investigation did not, in fact, provide Martin with an alibi. Moreover,

Martin has not shown that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial

would have been different had the proffered witnesses testified. Cf. id. at 1013-14

(finding no prejudice when an alleged alibi witness did not testify and the court could

Appellate Case: 06-3918 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2007 Entry ID: 3365449
-3-

not conclude the missing witness’s testimony would have altered the outcome of the

trial). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3918 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2007 Entry ID: 3365449