Robert Spencer v. Martin Biter

MEMORANDUM

Robert Marshall Spencer appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Spencer was convicted of first degree murder, with special circumstances, and other crimes in California and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He then sought a writ of habeas corpus in this proceeding.

(1) Spencer first argues that the writ should issue because the state courts unreasonably determined that his confession was not coerced. We do not agree. He cannot prevail if “fairminded jurists could disagree over whether” his confession was . coerced. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 , 124 S.Ct. 2140, 2149 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004); see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); cf. Burt v. Titlow, — U.S.-,-, 134 S.Ct. 10, 15-16 , 187 L.Ed.2d 348 (2013); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-09 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1520-21 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Upon review of the record, we are unable to say that fairminded jurists could not agree that based upon the totality of the circumstances, Spencer’s confession was not coerced. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 ,…