Steven Varnum v. Richard Kirkland
This text of 430 F. App'x 589 (Steven Varnum v. Richard Kirkland) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Steven Lee Varnum appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Varnum contends that the state court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence and counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state court denial of Varnum’s motion was not an unreasonable determination of the facts and was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (invocation of Miranda right to counsel must be unambiguous such that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would understand the statement to be invoking the right to counsel).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
430 F. App'x 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-varnum-v-richard-kirkland-ca9-2011.