Sledge v. Blanks

363 F. App'x 512
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 27, 2010·No. 07-55581·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Derrick Sledge, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues the state court improperly denied his motion to suppress statements he made to police without first being advised of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state court determined that Miranda warnings were not necessary because Sledge was not “in custody” when two police officers temporarily detained and briefly questioned him in the lobby of a bank before they arrested him. See *513 Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). The state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); cf. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); United States v. Woods, 720 F.2d 1022, 1029-30 (9th Cir.1983). Therefore, the district court properly denied relief.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

Sledge v. Blanks, 363 F. App'x 512 (9th Cir. 2010).

363 F. App'x 512 (Sledge v. Blanks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Berkemer v. McCarty
468 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Stansbury v. California
511 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court, 1994)