Wilson

MEMORANDUM *

Kelly Harold Wilson appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We affirm.

The court of appeal’s decision that Wilson was not subjected to custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 *268 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The court reasonably concluded that the officers’ comments making clear their belief that Wilson was guilty would not have “affected how a reasonable person in [Wilson’s] position would perceive his ... freedom to leave.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 325 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (per curiam); see also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495-96 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam). Although the officers’ refusal to answer some of Wilson’s questions on the ground that they were “in control,” as well as their denials of Wilson’s requests to smoke and hear from Wilson’s girlfriend, weigh in favor of a determination that Wilson was in custody, the court of appeal’s decision to the contrary was not objectively unreasonable…