Regina Peel v. Jeffrey Beard ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REGINA PEEL, ) No. 13-57155
)
Petitioner - Appellant, ) D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05105-FMO-JEM
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
JEFFREY BEARD, )
)
Respondent - Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 7, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA,** District
Judge.
Regina Peel appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for writ of
habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
Peel asserts that her right to be protected against self-incrimination under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated when she was
interrogated by police officers who did not inform her of her rights under Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). We
disagree.
Miranda protections are accorded to those who are subjected to “custodial
interrogation.” Id. The writ of habeas corpus cannot issue unless the decision of
the state court “‘was contrary to’ federal law then clearly established in the
holdings of [the Supreme] Court; or that it ‘involved an unreasonable application
of’ such law; or that it ‘was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts’ in
light of the record before the state court.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100,
131 S. Ct. 770, 785, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011) (citations omitted). Moreover, relief
must be denied unless “the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in
federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood
and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded
disagreement.” Id. at 103, 131 S. Ct. 786–87. We have carefully reviewed the
record, including the transcript of the interrogation, and we are unable to say that
Peel has met those standards. That is, she has not shown that the California Court
of Appeal made unreasonable determinations of facts. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1041, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). Nor are we
2
able to say that in light of those facts the Court of Appeal’s determination that she
was not in custody1 was unreasonable.2 We recognize that we have decided cases
on direct review that might suggest a contrary conclusion,3 but those cannot be
relied upon as a source of or to sharpen Supreme Court law for purposes of habeas
corpus review of state decisions.4
AFFIRMED.
1
See, e.g., Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 660–65, 124 S. Ct. 2140,
2147–50, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 437–39,
104 S. Ct. 3138, 3149–50, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984); California v. Behleler, 463
U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S. Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam);
see also Howes v. Fields, __ U.S. __, __, 132 S. Ct. 1181, 1189–90, 182 L. Ed. 2d
17 (2012).
2
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102, 131 S. Ct. at 786.
3
See United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008);
United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2002); but see Kim, 292
F.3d at 978 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting).
4
Marshall v. Rodgers, __ U.S. __, __, 133 S. Ct. 1446, 1450–51, 185 L. Ed.
2d 540 (2013) (per curiam); Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. __, __, 132 S. Ct. 2148,
2155–56, 183 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2012) (per curiam).
3