Jovan'z Smith v. Ken Clark

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Jovan’z Smith (Smith) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for assault on a child causing death. Smith contends that the California trial court violated his constitutional rights by admitting his confession into evidence even though it was obtained during a lengthy, station-house interrogation during which he was not timely advised of his Miranda rights. The district court found this to be a close case, but denied Smith’s petition and granted a certifícate of ap-pealability. Reviewing the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo, and bound by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we affirm.

1. AEDPA authorizes the grant of a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habe-as corpus when the relevant state court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” -or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Under AEDPA, the Court must “look to the last…

concurring:

I agree with my colleagues that we are forced to affirm, given the deferential standard of review imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). I offer a few additional thoughts to explain why I find that outcome troubling. If .this case is any indication, California courts are giving virtually dispositive weight to the fact that a suspect has been told he is not under arrest, even when all other circumstances suggest that the suspect is “in custody” for Miranda purposes.

The Supreme Court devised the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), to protect the Fifth Amendment *422 privilege against self-incrimination. The Court believed that “incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere” generates “inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” Id. at 445, 467 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . The Court concluded that the warnings it prescribed were needed “to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 07 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOVAN’Z SMITH, No. 14-15162

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03312-MCE-

GGH

v.

KEN CLARK, Warden, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2015 San Francisco, California

Before: CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Jovan’z Smith (Smith) appeals the district court’s

denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for assault on a

child causing death. Smith contends that the California trial court violated his

constitutional rights by admitting his confession into evidence even though it was

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. obtained during a lengthy, station-house interrogation during which he was…