A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t14,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

BL AI S E KOKI NDA,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. CH AR L E S P E T E RS ON,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6374 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 6 - 0 8 2 8 - HE) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M UR P HY and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerB l ai s e K oki nda appe al s t he deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on. M r . K oki nda w as convi ct ed bya j ur yof tr aff i cki ng i n i l l egal drugs and pos s es s i ng drug par aphernal i a. H e w as s t opped w hi l e dr i vi ng thr ough O kl ahoma and a s ear ch of hi s r ent ed s por tut i l i tyvehi cl e r evea l ed, among ot her th in g s , a s u itc a s e c o n ta in in g a p p ro x im a te ly fo rt y -s ix p o u n d s o f m a riju a n a .-2-

M r . K oki nda ar gued i n hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on that( 1) the s t op and s ear ch of hi s vehi cl e vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment , and ( 2) thathi s Si xth A m endment rig h t to e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l w a s v io late d b e c a u se “ h is A p p e llate C o u n se l fa iled to a rg u e w h e th e r th e d ru g d o g ’s ju m p in g in to P e tit io n e r’s v e h icle thro u g h the d ri v er’s side w ind o w co n sti tuted an u n rea so n ab le sea rch an d seizu re a ffe c te d b yth e p o lic e .” R ., D o c . 1 a t 4 . D esp it e the fa ct th at M r. K o k ind a h ad n o t exh au sted h is st ate c o u rt rem ed ies as to h is cl aim o f in effe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel, the d istri ct co u rt adopt ed the r epor tand r ecomm endat i on of the magi s tr at e j udge as s i gned t o the c a se a n d d e n ied M r. K o k in d a ’s h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n o n its m e rits. O n a p p e a l, M r . K oki nda ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s Four th A m endment cl ai m and i n fai l i ng t o ei t herhol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng r egar di ng hi s i neffect i ve assistan ce o f c o u n sel claim o r all o w h im to ex h au st his O k laho m a state c o u rt r emedi es as t o t hatcl ai m . W e have gr ant ed M r . K oki nda a c er t i fi cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i t y( CO A) a s t o h i s i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m a n d n o w, exer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) , A FFIRM the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of the pet i t i on. BA CK GR OUND W hi l e dr i vi ng t hr ough O kl ahoma, M r . K oki nda w as s t opped form aki ng an i l l egal l ane c hange bySer geantC had C ook of the O kl ahoma C i tyPol i ce D epart m ent . D ur i ng t he s t op, Ser geantC ook beca m e s us pi ci ous thatM r . K oki nda-3-

m i ghtbe i nvol ved i n ot heri l l egal act i vi ty . A ccor di ng t o Ser geantC ook, M r . K oki nda w oul d notm ake e y e cont actw i th hi m and keptrubbi ng hi s neck a nd fo reh ea d . M r. K o k ind a’s b rea thing w as h ea v yan d h is ha n d s an d li p s w ere t r embl i ng. T hes e s i gns of nervous nes s i ncr eas ed as Ser geantC ook as ked M r . K oki nda more ques t i ons . M r . K oki nda t ol d Ser geantC ook thathe w as tr av eli n g fro m C ali fo rnia to P en n sy lvan ia t o v isi t his m o ther; bu t M r. K o k ind a’s r ent al agr eements how ed thathe w as s chedul ed t o r etur n the ca rt o a r ent al companyoffi ce i n Spokane, W as hi ngt on i n fi ve day s . M r . K oki nda t ol d Ser geant C ook t hathe had or i gi nal l yr ent ed the ca rforthe purpos e of t aki ng hi s gi r l fr i end on a s urpr i s e tr i p; butt he Ser geantnot i ced thatthe r ent al agr eements how ed that M r. K o k in d a ’s g irlfr ien d w a s th e p rim a ryre n ter o f th e v e h icle . M r. K o k in d a to ld Ser geantC ook t hathe had no c r i m i nal hi s t or y ; butSer geantC ook s oon l earned f ro m a b a c k g ro u n d c h e c k th a t M r. K o k in d a h a d a p rio r d ru g -re late d c o n v ictio n in Penns y l vani a w hi ch i ncl uded a w eapons char ge. H i s s us pi ci ons ar ous ed, Ser geant C ook as ked M r . K oki nda i f he c oul d s ear ch hi s vehi cl e. M r . K oki nda r efus ed, t el l i ng t he Ser geantt hathe had pr evi ous l yhad a ba d exper i ence byl et t i ng a la w -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r s e a rc h h is c a r. Ser geantC ook cal l ed a c ani ne off i cer , D eputyK evi n J ohns on, t o the s cene so that a d rug sn iff test co u ld b e c o n d u cted aro u n d the e x teri o r of M r. K o k ind a’s vehi cl e. D ur i ng t he t es t , t he drug det ect i on dog j um ped thr ough the open f r ont dr i ver ’ s s i de w i ndow and i ndi cat ed thathe had de t ect ed drugs i n the bac k of the-4-

v e h icle . T h e v e h icle w a s s e a rc h e d a n d th e m a riju a n a w a s fo u n d . F o llo w in g h is convi ct i on and the affi r m ance of thatconvi ct i on bythe O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s , M r . K oki nda fi l ed hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on i n fede r al di s tr i ct c o u rt. A N A L Y S IS U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (a): T he Supr eme C our t , a J us t i ce ther eof, a ci r cui tj udge, ora di s tr i ct c o u rt sh a ll en ter tain a n a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in b e h a lf o f a p e rso n in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to th e ju d g m e n t o f a S tate courtonl yon t he gr ound t hathe i s i n cus t odyi n vi ol at i on of the C on st i tuti on or l aw s or treat i es of t he U nit ed S t at es. U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ) a n a p p e a l m a yn o t b e tak e n f ro m th e fin a l o rd e r in a habe as corpus pr ocee di ng unl es s a C O A i s i s s ued pur s uantt o “a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” A s not ed above , w e have p rev iou slyg ran ted a ce rt ifi ca te of ap p ea labili ty(C O A ) t o M r. K o k ind a in re g ard t o h i s i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m. We d e n yh i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo rCO A as t o hi s Four t h A m endmentcl ai m beca us e M r . K oki nda has m ade no a r gum ent t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n det erm i ni ng thathe had be en pr ovi ded a o p p o rtu n ityfo r “ f

u ll an d fa ir c o n sid e ra tio n ” o f th a t cla im in th e O k lah o m a c o u rts u n d er S to n e v . P o w e ll , 428 U . S. 465, 486 ( 1976) . T he ar gum ent s he r ai s es on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g h i s F o u r t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m a r e th e s a me th a tth e Ok l a h o ma t r i al and appe l l at e court s have pr evi ous l ygr appl ed w i th.-5-

W e ther efor e tur n t o M r . K oki nda’ s Si xth A m endmenti neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . T he part i es do notdi s put e thatM r . K oki nda neve r ra is e d a n in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l c la im in a n ys ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . U nder§ 2254( b) ( 1) , a habe as corpus pet i t i on m aynotbe gr ant ed unl es s the pet i t i onerhas exhaus t ed hi s s t at e courtr emedi es r egar di ng the cl ai m s i n the pet i t i on. B utunder§ 2254( b) ( 2) “[a ] n appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus m a yb e d e n ied o n th e m e rits, n o tw ith sta n d in g th e fa ilu re o f th e a p p lica n t to exhaus tt he r emedi es avai l abl e i n the court s of the St at e. ” A s t o the s t andar d that s houl d be appl i ed i n det erm i ni ng w hethert o denyon the mer i t s a habe as corpus pet i t i on bas ed on an une xhaus t ed cl ai m , thi s courthas hel d that“‘ i f the courtof appea l s i s convi nced thatt he p e tit io n h a s n o m e rit , a bel at ed appl i cat i on of the exhaus t i on rul e mi ghts i m pl yr equi r e us el es s l i t i gat i on i n the s t at e court s . ’ ” Moor e v. Schoem an , 288 F. 3d 1231, 1234 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Hoxs i e v. Ker by , 108 F. 3d 1239, 1243 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . A s w i l l be di s cus s ed i n det ai l bel ow , bot h t he magi s tr at e j udge and the di s tr i ctj udge det erm i ned thatM r . K oki nda’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m had no m er i tundert he t es ts etfor t h i n Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 (19 8 4 ), a lth o u g h a p p a re n tly fo r d iffe re n t r e a s o n s . T o es t abl i s h i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , a pet i t i onerm us tpr ove t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entand that c o u n se l’s d e ficie n t p e rfo rm a n c e p reju d ice d th e d e fe n se . T o c a rryh is b u rde n u n d er S tri ck lan d ’s perform ance p rong, [a pet i t i on er] m ust demonstr at e hi s couns el comm i t t ed s er i ous err or s i n l i ghtof-6-

p re v a ili n g p ro fe ss io n a l n o rm s s u c h th a t h is le g a l re p re se n tatio n fe ll bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s . I n s o doi ng, [a pet i t i oner ] m us tover come t he pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ’ s conduct w as notcons t i tut i onal l ydefe ct i ve. C annon v. G i bs on , 259 F. 3d 1253, 1273 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). “ T a k e n to g e th e r, S tri ck lan d ’s per form ance and pr ej udi ce i nqui r i es pr ovi de the fol l ow i ng benchmar k forj udgi ng a cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance : ‘ w hethercouns el ’ s conducts o underm i ned the pr oper funct i oni ng of the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr oduced a j us tr es ul t . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 6 ). I f the s t at e courtdi d notdeci de a c l ai m on the mer i t s , and i ti s not ot herw i s e pr ocedur al l ybarr ed, w e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s , if a n y , fo r c le a r e rr o r. H o w e v e r, w h e n th e d istric t co u rt’s fin d in g s o f fa c t ar e b a se d m e re ly on a r evi ew of the s t at e r ecor d, w e do notgi ve them t he bene fi tof t he cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d buti ns t ead c onductan i ndepende nt r e v i e w. Young v. Si r m ons , 486 F. 3d 655, 663 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i ons , i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a n d e llip s is o m itte d ). M r. K o k in d a c laim e d in h is p e tit io n th a t h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w as vi ol at ed bec aus e “hi s A ppel l at e C ouns el fai l ed t o ar gue w hethert he drug dog’ s j um pi ng i nt o Pet i t i oner ’ s vehi cl e thr ough the dr i ver ’ s s i de w i ndow cons t i tut ed an unr eas onabl e s ear ch and s ei zur e affec t ed [s i c] byt he pol i ce. ” R . , D oc. 1 at4. A s t o the s ear ch bythe drug dog, M r . K oki nda a lleg e d th a t “[ t]h e d o g w a s p e rm itt e d , o r e n c o u ra g e d , to ju m p in to th e v e h icle-7-

t hr ough an open w i ndow –w i t hout[the off i cer ] fi r s tobt ai ni ng a w arr ant . ” Id . , at 3 . M r. K o k in d a a lso a lleg e d : W h ile th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t th e d o g h a n d ler d id anyt hi ng t o encour age the dog t o j um p thr ough the open w i ndow , the h a n d ler w o u ld h a rd lya d m it th a t h e h a d so little c o n tro l o f th e ‘h ig h ly t r a i n e d c a n i n e ’ a s t o h a v e a l l o we d th e d o g t o h a v e d o n e s o o f i t s o wn vol i t i on. Id . at 5 . M r. K o k in d a a lleg e d th a t “th e d o g ’s le a p in sid e P e tit io n e r’s v e h icle d id cons t i tut e a Fourt h A m endmentvi ol at i on, becaus e bythe O ffi cerdi r ect i ng Pet i t i onert o r ol l dow n hi s w i ndow , and l at erbythe s ame offi cerpul l i ng hi m fr om the v eh icl e, th e o fficer gave t he dog ac ces s bycaus i ng the w i ndow t o be opene d. ” Id . In re sp o n se to a n in q u iryo n h is fo rm p e tit io n a s to w h yh e d id n o t ex h a u st h is s t at e courtr emedi es as t o hi s cl ai m , M r . K oki nda w r ot e: “I neffect i ve as s i s t ance o f a p p ell ate c o u n sel. A s o m itti n g su ch a c lear v iolati o n o f P eti ti o n er’s C ons t i tut i onal r i ght s cannotbe dee m ed ‘ s tr at egy ’ – s i m pl yt o go ‘ Fas tT r ack’ befor e the appe l l at e court . ” Id . M r . K oki nda gave t he exa cts ame ans w ert o an in q u ir yo f

w h yth e is s u e w a s n o t r a is e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Id . at6. T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s M r . K oki nda’ s pet i t i on, ar gui ng th a t w h ile h e h a d p ro p e rlye x h a u ste d h is s tate c o u rt re m e d ies a s to h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im , h e h a d n o t d o n e so a s to h is in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f a p p e llate co u n sel claim . Itarg u ed that the p rop er c o u rse o f a cti o n w as to d ism iss th e e n ti re p e tit io n w ith o u t p reju d ice in o rd e r to p e rm it M r. K o k in d a to e x h a u st h is s tate cou rtrem edies byfi l i ng a st at e app l i cat i on for po st -convict i on rel i ef be cause-8-

“i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el cl ai m s . . . cannotbe r ai s ed on di r ect appea l . ” Id . , D oc. 12 at4. T he magi s t r at e j udge i nt erpr et ed M r . K oki nda’ s pet i t i on as compl ai ni ng of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e b yh is c o u n se l o n d ire c t ap p e a l: I n gr ound t w o, Pet i t i onercont ends thathe w as deni ed effec t i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el i n vi ol at i on of the Si xth A m endment b e c a u se h is a p p e llate c o u n se l fa iled to a ss e rt th a t an u n re a so n a b le se a rc h a n d se izu re o c c u rre d w h e n th e o ffice r a llo w e d th e d ru g d o g to j um p int o P et i t i on er’ s vehicl e t hroug h an op en w i nd ow w i tho ut fi rs t o b tain in g a w a rra n t. Id . , D oc. 17 at4. T he magi s t r at e j udge found i tcur i ous thatM r . K oki nda al l eged t hatt he ar gum entas s ert ed i n hi s fi r s tcl ai m –i . e. , thathi s Four th A m endment r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed byt he s t op and s ear ch of hi s vehi cl e, i ncl udi ng the drug d o g ’s en tryinto h is car– hadb e e n ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. T h a t as se rtio n d ire c tly c o n tra d icte d M r. K o k in d a ’s a rg u m e n t in h is s e c o n d c laim th a t h is a p p e llate couns el w as i neffect i ve i n fai l i ng t o r ai s e the fi r s tcl ai m on di r ectappea l . T he m agi s t r at e j udge hel d t hati tw as cl earfr om the fa ce of M r . K oki nda’ s pet i t i on th a t h is a p p e llate c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to a rg u e th e iss u e o n a p p e a l d id n o t co n stitu te in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. T h e m a g istra te ju d g e c o rre c tlyn o ted th a t th is cour thas hel d i n Uni t ed Stat es v. St one , 866 F. 2d 359, 364 ( 10th C i r . 1989) , that t he Four t h A m endmenti s noti m pl i cat ed w hen a drug det ect i on dog j um ps i nt o a s us pect ’ s vehi cl e dur i ng a tr aff i c s t op i f the dog’ s act i ons w er e i ns t i nctual . T he m ag istrate jud g e h eld th at M r. K o k ind a’s a d m issi o n in h is pe ti ti o n that “the re-9-

[w as ] no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatthe dog handl erdi d anythi ng t o encour age the d o g to ju m p th ro u g h th e o p e n w in d o w ” w a s th e re fo re d is p o s itiv e . Id . , D oc. 1 at 5. T he magi s t r at e j udge’ s rul i ng w as evi dent l ybas ed on a de t erm i nat i on that t her e w as no r eas on forM r . K oki nda’ s appel l at e couns el t o ar gue a c l ai m thathad e ith e r n o t b e e n ra is e d a t tr ia l o r h a d b e e n u n s u p p o rt e d b yre c o rd e v id e n c e . See Jacks on v. Shanks , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 2 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ It is c o m p lete ly r eas onabl e, and i n fac tadvi s abl e, forappel l at e couns el t o el i m i nat e w eak but arg u ab le claim s an d p u rsue issue s o n ap p ea l w h ich a re m o re li k elyto su cc ee d . ”). T he di s t r i ctcour t , how ever , ar guabl yi nt erpr et ed M r . K oki nda’ s habea s p e tit io n d iffe re n tlyth a n th e m a g istra te ju d g e . A lth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt h e ld t hati t“conc ur [r ed] w i t h [the magi s tr at e j udge’ s ] anal y s i s of the i s s ues and a p p lica b le la w a n d a d o p ts h is R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n ,” R ., D o c . 2 0 a t 4 , it al so determ i ned t hat M r. K ok i nd a argued i n h i s pet i t i on “t hat hi s tr i alcouns el w as i neffect i ve byfai l i ng t o ar gue thatthe s ear ch w as i l l egal beca us e i tw as effect ed bya drug dog j um pi ng i nt o the aut om obi l e thr ough an open c arw i ndow . ” Id . at 2 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). B u t th e d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e o n ly obj ect i on t hatM r . K oki nda made t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on t hatw as bas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r ai s ed an e n t i r e l yn e w c l a i m. M r . K oki nda ar gued i n hi s obj ect i on: “Pet i t i oneri s notcl ai m i ng that couns el offe r ed i nadequa t e defens e attr i al – H e offer ed N O D E FE N SE . ” Id .,-10-

D oc. 19 at2. H e cl ai m ed thatof the fourw i tnes s es pr es ent ed bythe pr os ecut i on, hi s t r i al couns el cr os s - exami ned Ser geantC ook, butfai l ed t o exami ne the d e tec tiv e w h o q u e stio n e d M r. K o k in d a a f ter h is a rre st, a w itn e ss f ro m th e fo re n sic la b o ra to ry, a n d D e p u ty Jo h n s o n . M r. K o k in d a th e n a rg u e d fo r th re e a n d a h a lf p a g e s th e ill e g a lityo f h is det ent i on and the eve ntual s ear ch of hi s vehi cl e. A s t o the s ni ff t es tbythe drug det ect i on dog, M r . K oki nda not ed thatD eputyJ ohns on t es t i fi ed thatthe dog “i ndi cat e[d] ” on the vehi cl e pr i ort o j um pi ng thr ough the w i ndow , beca us e the dog “ had a ch an ge o

f beha vi or b y sto p p in g a n d p u ttin g h is n o se u p in th e a ir l i ke he w as t ryi ng t o s m el l odor , and that ’ s w hen he j um ped thr ough t he w i ndow . ” Id . at7 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . M r . K oki nda ar gued thi s t es t i m onyw as nece s s ar i l yunt rue bec aus e D eputyJ ohns on had pr evi ous l yt es t i fi ed thathi s drug d o g w as “ a p assiv e a lertd o g , so w h en h e c o m es to the s o u rce o f a n arc o ti c o d o r, he w i l l ei t her s i t or l ay dow n byt he s our ce of t he odor . ” Id . at6. M r . K oki nda a rg u e d th a t itw a s im p o ss ib le to tell if D e p u tyJo h n so n sig n a led o r e n c o u ra g e d h is d o g to ju m p in to th e c a r in a n yw a yb e c a u se h is tria l co u n se l fa iled to cr os s - exami ne the deputy . T he di s tr i ctcourtr ead M r . K oki nda’ s obj ect i on as “as s er t [i ng] t hathi s at t or neyw as i neffect i ve bec aus e he offer ed ‘ no defe ns e’ at t he tr i al , ” and notas obj ect i ng t o the deni al of hi s cl ai m t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o ar gue thatt he drug dog’ s entryi nt o the vehi cl e amount ed to a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l s e a rc h . Id . , D o c. 20 at 3. T h e d istri ct co u rtthere fo re-11-

re f u se d to c o n sid e r th e a rg u m e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t ith a d n o t b e e n p re v io u sly p re s e n te d to th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . G a rfin k le , 261 F. 3d 1030, 1031 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hatl egal theor i es r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n an o bjecti o n to a m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rtan d rec o m m en d ati o n are d ee m ed w aive d ). W e n ee d n o t determ ine w h ethe r th e m ag istrate jud g e o r th e d istri ct co u rt corr ect l yi nt erpr et ed M r . K oki nda’ s pet i t i on. U nderei therof the i nt erpr et at i ons a n d a n a ly se s p re se n ted , affirm a n c e w o u ld b e re q u ire d fo r th e re a so n s s e t fo rth t her ei n. M or eover , aff i r m ance w oul d be r equi r ed eve n i f w e w er e t o r ead M r . K oki nda’ s pet i t i on and obj ect i on as both r ai s i ng and pr oper l ypr es ervi ng a cl ai m t hathi s t r i al couns el pr ovi ded i neffect i ve as s i s t ance byfai l i ng t o ar gue that th e d ru g d o g ’s e n tr yin to th e v e h ic le a m o u n te d to a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l s e a rc h . A s n o ted b yM r. K o k ind a in h is objecti o n to the m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rt and r ecomm endat i on, D eputyJ ohns on t es t i fi ed thatthe drug dog had a c hange of behavi orpr i ort o j um pi ng i ns i de the vehi cl e. T he D eputyt es t i fi ed thatas the drug dog w as w al ki ng pas tt he fr ontdr i ver ’ s s i de doorw i th the open w i ndow , he s t opped and puthi s nos e up i n t he ai rl i ke he w as try i ng t o s m el l an odor“and that’s w h en h e jum p ed thro u g h the w ind o w . ” R . , D o c. 19 at 7. Itis th ere fo re cl eart hatD eputyJ ohns on’ s t es t i m onyw as thati tappea r ed t o hi m thatthe drug det ect i on dog j um ped i nt o t he w i ndow beca us e he s m el l ed s om ethi ng as he w as pas s i ng t he dr i ver ’ s s i de door . M r . K oki nda has nevercl ai m ed thathe s aw D eputyJ ohns on gi ve anys or tof s i gnal t o the drug det ect i on dog t o j um p i nt o t heT h e re w a s n o n e e d fo r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g in th is c a s e . 1 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 2) pr ohi bi t s a fe der al di s tr i ctcourtfr om conduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng on a habe as cl ai m t hatpet i t i oner fa iled to d e v e lo p in sta te c o u rt. H o w e v e r, if th e p e tit io n e r d id n o t fa il t o devel op t he fa ctual bas i s of hi s cl ai m i n St at e court , § 2254( e) ( 2) is n o t ap p lica b le a n d a fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rt sh o u ld p ro c e e d to anal y ze w hethera hea r i ng i s appr opr i at e orr equi r ed under pr e- A E D PA s t andar ds . . . . U nderpr e- A E D PA s t andar ds , a pet i t i oner i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng on the i s s ue of i neffect i ve couns el s o l ong as hi s al l egat i ons , i f true and notcontr avene d byt he exi s t i ng fac tual r ecor d, w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o habea s r el i ef. Young , 4 8 6 F . 3 d at 67 9 (cit ati o n s an d ell ipse s o m itted). H ere , M r. K o k ind a’s al l egat i ons w oul d notent i t l e hi m t o habea s r el i ef. -12- car . C ons equent l y , i tw as notobj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e forM r . K oki nda’ s tr i al c o u n se l to n o t as k D e p u tyJo h n so n if h e “ e n c o u ra g e d ” th e d ru g d e tec tio n d o g to j u m p i n t o t h e v e h i c l e w h e n t h e a n s w e rw a s c l e a rf r o m p r e v i o u s t e s t i m o n y. Si nce M r . K oki nda’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m m us tfai l under anyof the pos s i bl e r eadi ngs of hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on and obj ect i on t o the m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rtan d rec o m m en d ati o n , the ju d g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt d e n y i n g M r . Ko k i n d a ’ s p e t i t i o n o n th e me r i t s i s AF F I RMED . 1 E n tered fo r th e C o u rt D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge