Sanbeira Thlang v. Greg Lewis, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 06 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SANBEIRA THLANG, No. 12-16260
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00046-WBS-
EFB
v.
GREG LEWIS, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 4, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sanbiera Thlang appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably
rejected his challenge to the trial court’s admission of his inculpatory statements.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253(a), 2254(a), and affirm
the district court’s denial of Thlang’s habeas petition.
During a pretrial interrogation, Thlang admitted that he was sitting in a
vehicle that was involved in a drive-up shooting and identified the other occupants
in the vehicle. Prior to this admission, the detective conducting the interrogation
stated “I’d rather use you as a witness than . . . a suspect.” Thlang argued that this
was an implied promise of benefit or leniency that induced him to admit he was
present at the shooting, making his statements involuntary and inadmissible. The
California Court of Appeal rejected Thlang’s argument based on the objective
conduct of the participants in the interrogation, as well as Thlang’s relative
sophistication in dealing with police interrogation. The court viewed the
detective’s statement as outlining the benefits of confessing. Thlang now contends
that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was an unreasonable application of
the law or determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Officials cannot extract a confession “by any sort of threats or violence, [or]
. . . by any direct or implied promises, however slight, [or] by the exertion of any
improper influence.” Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30 (1976). However, “in most
circumstances, speculation that cooperation will benefit the defendant or even
promises to recommend leniency are not sufficiently compelling to overbear a
defendant’s will.” United States v. Harrison, 34 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 1994).
Based on the record, a reasonable jurist could find that Thlang was not compelled
by an implied promise of leniency, but instead made a voluntary, tactical decision
to admit a limited role in the shooting because he thought the admission would
help his case at trial. The California Court of Appeal’s decision was not contrary
to clearly established Supreme Court precedent and Thlang cannot show that the
state court’s application of the law or determination of the facts was unreasonable.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011).
AFFIRMED.