Brown

Brown v. Hickman

Good Law
35 F. App'x 644
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 24, 2002No. 00-55627; D.C. No. CV-99-09738-LGBCalifornia500 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Napolean Brown appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Brown challenges his California state conviction and sentence for second degree murder, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, driving under the influence and causing bodily injury to another person, and driving under the influence and causing injury to another person while having a .08% or higher blood alcohol. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Brown contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress five statements allegedly obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The first statement is, ‘Who wrecked my mama’s car?” The second is that he “had been drinking and did PCP.” The third pertains to how many other people were in the car with him. The fourth is “I knew I should have let her drive man.” Lastly, the fifth is “My girlfriend was driving, and she was drinking, and I didn’t want her to get in trouble because she was pregnant, so after she crashed, I made sure she was okay, and switched seats with her.”

We may reverse a state court decision only if it “was contrary to,…

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.