Estey v. Hill

Ninth Circuit

Estey v. Hill

325 F. App'x 589

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 2009

DocketNo. 08-35490

StatusPublished

This text of 325 F. App'x 589 (Estey v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estey v. Hill, 325 F. App'x 589 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

William Estey appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. The state court’s finding of fact that Estey went to the police station voluntarily, expecting questioning to ensue, was not unreasonable in light of the evidence before the court. The evidence in the record to the contrary is not so probative that the trial court was required to address it directly in its findings of fact. Cf. Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999-1008 (9th Cir.2004). Though some facts point toward a finding of custody, we cannot say that, in light of its factual finding, the state court’s determination that Estey was not in custody was objectively unreasonable. See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 665, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9til Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

William Estey appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. The state court’s finding of fact that Estey went to the police station voluntarily, expecting questioning to ensue, was not unreasonable in light of the evidence before the court. The evidence in the record to the contrary is not so probative that the trial court was required to address it directly in its findings of fact. Cf. Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999-1008 (9th Cir.2004). Though some facts point toward a finding of custody, we cannot say that, in light of its factual finding, the state court’s determination that Estey was not in custody was objectively unreasonable. See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 665, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9til Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F. App'x 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estey-v-hill-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack