Steven Varnum v. Richard Kirkland
Steven Varnum v. Richard Kirkland
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.