22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f5,MEMORANDUM Lomel Hamilton claims that officers violated his Miranda rights and that the state court therefore erred in admitting his confession at trial. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Relying on Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the state court of appeal concluded that Hamilton initiated the phone call during which he confessed out of a desire to have a generalized discussion about the investigation and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his previously invoked right to have counsel present during police interrogation. Neither of those determinations represents “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). As a result, we are bound by the state court of appeal’s finding of waiver. Since Hamilton waived his right to counsel, the trial court didn’t err in admitting his confession into evidence. AFFIRMED. This disposition isn't appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T527,

MEMORANDUM

Lomel Hamilton claims that officers violated his Miranda rights and that the state court therefore erred in admitting his confession at trial. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Relying on Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the state court of appeal concluded that Hamilton initiated the phone call during which he confessed out of a desire to have a generalized discussion about the investigation and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his previously invoked right to have counsel present during police interrogation. Neither of those determinations represents “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). As a result, we are bound by the state court of appeal’s finding of waiver.

Since Hamilton waived his right to counsel, the trial court didn’t err in admitting his confession into evidence.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition isn't appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.