McAnally

McAnally v. Stewart

Good Law
19 F. App'x 568
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 20, 2001No. 00-16385; D.C. No. CV-97-00811-SMMCalifornia882 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona prisoner Timothy Scott McAnally appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his post-AEDPA petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and affirm.

Under the AEDPA, we may reverse a state court’s decision denying relief only if that decision is contrary to, or involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.) (noting circuit case law is persuasive authority), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000).

McAnally first contends the trial court violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) by improperly admitting into evidence his December 30,1989 confession, in which he admitted to accidentally killing the victim. McAnally’s contention is without merit. As the Arizona Court of Appeal properly determined, the facts found by the trial court did not support its finding of a voluntary Miranda waiver. 1 See Col…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.