Clifton J. Shedelbower v. Wayne Estelle

This habeas corpus case involves the question of whether a confession by the appellant should have been suppressed under the rules set forth in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Clifton Shedelbower, a California state prisoner serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for murder and a consecutive 29-year sentence for rape and related crimes, appeals the district court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that his confession was the product of deception and improper interrogation after he had requested an attorney. We conclude that there was no violation of Shedelbower’s constitutional rights. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of the writ of hábeas corpus.

I. FACTS

The California Appellate Court sets out in detail the underlying facts in its opinion of People v. Dominick, 182 Cal.App.3d 1174 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 849 (1986).

We briefly summarize them here. On November 29, 1981, Danny Harris, a 16-year-old boy, and Kim M., an 18-year-old girl, were parked in the early morning hours on a mountaintop location overlooking the San…