Steven Varnum v. Richard Kirkland

430 F. App'x 589
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 2011
Docket09-15350
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Steven Varnum v. Richard Kirkland, 430 F. App'x 589 (9th Cir. 2011).

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

Varnum v. Lewis
181 L. Ed. 2d 758 (Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 F. App'x 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-varnum-v-richard-kirkland-ca9-2011.