Milton Hayes v. Anthony Hedgpeth , 589 F. App'x 393 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MILTON N. HAYES, No. 12-17630
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00161-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden and
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2015**
San Francisco California
Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Hayes appeals from the district court judgment denying his
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hayes challenges
his California conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that his pre-arrest
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
statements to police should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and,
reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, we affirm.
We must deny Hayes’s petition unless the decision of the California Court of
Appeal “(1) . . . 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).
The decision of the California Court of Appeal was not contrary to any
principle of law clearly established by Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve
an unreasonable application of any such principle. Because some of the facts in this
case weigh in favor of a finding that Hayes was in custody when he was
interrogated while other facts weigh against such a finding, fairminded jurists
could disagree over whether Hayes was in custody. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541
U.S. 652, 664–65 (2004). Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s decision was not
unreasonable. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786–87 (2011). Nor was the
California Court of Appeal’s decision based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts. Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
2