Leiva

Petitioner-Appellant Janetta Lynn Leiva appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. Leiva argues that her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when her statements, made during a pre-trial competency examination and without Miranda warnings, were admitted into evidence at the insanity phase of her murder trial. We affirm.

Because Leiva’s habeas petition was adjudicated on the merits in state court, we may grant the petition only if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, elearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). The relevant state court decision here is that of the California Court of Appeal, see Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 805-06 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991), which held that the admission of Leiva’s statements did not violate her Fifth Amendment rights. Leiva argues that this decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the…