Michael Robert Hiscox v. Mike Martel

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Robert Hiscox appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Doody v. Ryan, 649 F.3d 986, 1001 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), and we affirm.

Hiscox contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting into evidence an audiotape recording of'a conversation in which he made incriminating statements that he asserts were coerced through an implied promise of leniency. The state court’s conclusion that the confession was not coerced was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225-26 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); see also Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 , 110 S.Ct. 2394 , 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990) (‘When the suspect has no reason to think that the listeners have official power over him, it should not be assumed that his words…