F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
April 19, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DENNIS BROW N,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 06-3430
v. (Case No. 06-CV-3092-W EB)
DA VID R . M cKU NE; ATTO RN EY (D . Kan.)
GEN ERAL O F KANSAS,
Respondents-Appellees.
OR DER *
Before BR ISC OE, M cKA Y, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
In this pro se § 2254 prisoner appeal, Petitioner challenges his state court
conviction on five counts of aggravated robbery, one count of criminal threat, and
one count of obstruction of official duty. Petitioner claimed in his habeas petition
that his conviction was unconstitutional because there was insufficient evidence
to support his conviction and because he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. The district court denied his petition and his request for a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). In his COA application to this court, Petitioner only
raises the ineffective assistance claim.
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
To obtain a COA, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to meet this burden,
Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation
omitted).
Petitioner argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by
failing to raise the issue of marital privilege in order to prevent the use of
testimony from Petitioner’s alleged common-law wife. Petitioner first raised this
issue in a state collateral attack on his conviction. After reviewing portions of the
trial transcript and hearing testimony from Petitioner, his mother, his alleged
comm on-law wife, and his trial counsel, the state district court determined that
trial counsel could not have succeeded in invoking the marital privilege because
the evidence did not show the existence of a common-law marriage at the time of
trial. This decision was affirmed by the state appellate court. Because “it is not
the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on
state-law questions,” Estelle v. M cGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991), we will not
reconsider the state courts’ determination that there was no comm on-law marriage
at the time of trial. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that it would
have been futile for counsel to argue that the marital privilege applied and, as a
-2-
result, that counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this issue. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
W e have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s
disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,
or Petitioner’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a
COA. For substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY
Petitioner’s request for a COA and DISM ISS the appeal. W e do, however,
G R A N T Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in form a pauperis.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-3-