Pierce

Russell Pierce appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He claims that effective counsel would have moved to suppress statements elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and that because his counsel failed to do this, his no- contest plea was unknowing and involuntary. We certified these issues for appeal, and affirm.

Pierce’s first state habeas petition, which raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, was denied on the merits. Because the trial court’s decision was unreasoned, we review it independently to determine whether it was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000). We conclude it was not. There is no showing that counsel acted unreasonably in negotiating a plea with a fixed sentence that substantially lessened Pierce’s exposure, rather than pursuing a Miranda issue that was destined to fail. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-89 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Pierce went to the police station voluntarily, was told he was…