Ternus

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Curtis Michael Ternus appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Specifically, he argues that he was prejudiced by the admission at trial of statements which he contends were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1996).

The California Court of Appeal assumed a Miranda violation had occurred; however, citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), that court found “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” As a result, Ternus had failed to establish prejudice. The district court also assumed a Miranda violation, but, citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), concluded that the error did not have a “ ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ ” Id., quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). Thus, according to the district court, Ternus was not prejudiced by the error and was not entitled to federal…