Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30246/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30246-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Appellee
Randy C. Marshall
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30246

Summary Calendar

RANDY C. MARSHALL,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:12-CV-2914

Before BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Randy C. Marshall, Louisiana prisoner # 539910, 

challenges the denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, concerning his 

conviction and life sentence for second-degree murder. Regarding the denial 

of relief, this court granted Marshall a certificate-of-appealability on whether 

his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing: to adequately 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-30246 Document: 00513211567 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
No. 14-30246

2

investigate the self-defense theory presented at trial; and to argue actual 

innocence at trial. 

In analyzing the denial of § 2254 relief, this court reviews issues of law 

de novo and findings of fact for clear error, applying the same deference to the 

state court’s decision as the district court under the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act. Ortiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 

2007). 

Marshall asserts: he and his counsel decided to pursue an actualinnocence theory at trial; but, his counsel convinced him to change the theory 

to self-defense just before opening statements began, without time for 

sufficient investigation. Marshall fails, however, to produce any evidence in 

support of this claim. “[M]ere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are 

insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 

530 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Marshall’s conclusory allegations are contradicted by the record, and are 

insufficient to demonstrate that, in denying this claim, the state court 

misapplied the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689–94 (1984),

standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-30246 Document: 00513211567 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2015