Angel Medrano v. Charles Ryan

Angel Medrano appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his convictions for murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and burglary. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court’s order.

1. The clearly established federal law regarding the government’s obligation to disclose information favorable to the defense is found in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In examining the reasonableness of a state court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), we look to “the last explained state-court judgment” on the claim. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 805 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). Here, that is the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Medrano, 173 Ariz. 393 , 844 P.2d 560 (1992) (‘Medrano I ”).

We conclude it was not unreasonable for the Arizona Supreme Court to determine, in light of the inculpatory evidence admitted at trial, that the undisclosed pretrial interview notes were not material. Me-drano confessed to the murder multiple times. Though he challenges the admissibility of some of the confessions, at one point he spontaneously stated: “I did it, I…