Robert Burlew v. A. Hedgpeth

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Robert C. Burlew, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition. Schell v. Wi-tek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.2000). Burlew’s habeas petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under the AEDPA, we must determine whether the state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

Burlew argues that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in concluding that his constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of his incriminating statement that he “thought maybe [the items in his trunk] were [stolen] and [that] he was moving them or helping someone move them.” It is clearly established federal law that incriminating statements made during custodial interrogation are not admissible against a criminal defendant unless the…