EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 2007 judgment of conviction entered against him in the Shasta County Superior Court on four counts of arson, with an enhancement for use of an accelerant as to one of the arson counts. He seeks relief on the grounds that: (1) his statements to police should not have been admitted at his trial because they were involuntary and coerced and were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona; and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief is denied.
Here we again confront the elusive and slippery idea of just when an interrogation becomes custodial. We must decide whether defendant David Jon Dillion, an arson suspect, was in custody when he confessed to setting five fires in his neighborhood before receiving his Miranda advisements.
Resp.'s Lodg. Doc. 2 at 1-4.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A federal writ is not available for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S.___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16 (2010); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the following standards for granting federal habeas corpus relief:
For purposes of applying § 2254(d)(1), "clearly established federal law" consists of holdings of the United States Supreme Court at the time of the state court decision. Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). Nonetheless, "circuit court precedent may be persuasive in determining what law is clearly established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably." Stanley, 633 F.3d at 859 (quoting Maxwell v. Roe, 606 F.3d 561, 567 (9th Cir. 2010))
A state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if it applies a rule contradicting a holding of the Supreme Court or reaches a result different from Supreme Court precedent on "materially indistinguishable" facts. Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 640 (2003). Under the "unreasonable application" clause of § 2254(d)(1), a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the Supreme Court's decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.
If the state court's decision does not meet the criteria set forth in § 2254(d), a reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of a habeas petitioner's claims. Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 735 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ("[I]t is now clear both that we may not grant habeas relief simply because of § 2254(d)(1) error and that, if there is such error, we must decide the habeas petition by considering de novo the constitutional issues raised.").
The court looks to the last reasoned state court decision as the basis for the state court judgment. Stanley, 633 F.3d at 859; Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004). If the last reasoned state court decision adopts or substantially incorporates the reasoning from a previous state court decision, this court may consider both decisions to ascertain the reasoning of the last decision. Edwards v. Lamarque, 475 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). "When a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 784-85. This presumption may be overcome by a showing "there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court's decision is more likely." Id. at 785 (citing Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991)). Where the state court reaches a decision on the merits but provides no reasoning to support its conclusion, a federal habeas court independently reviews the record to determine whether habeas corpus relief is available under § 2254(d). Stanley, 633 F.3d at 860; Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). "Independent review of the record is not de novo review of the constitutional issue, but rather, the only method by which we can determine whether a silent state court decision is objectively unreasonable." Himes, 336 F.3d at 853. Where no reasoned decision is available, the habeas petitioner still has the burden of "showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief." Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 784.
When it is clear, however, that a state court has not reached the merits of a petitioner's claim, the deferential standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not apply and a federal habeas court must review the claim de novo. Stanley, 633 F.3d at 860; Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006); Nulph v. Cook, 333 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner's first claim is that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated by the admission into evidence of his initial inculpatory statements to police because he had not received Miranda warnings at the time he made those statements. Petitioner argues that the police were required to give him the Miranda warnings because he was effectively "in custody" at the time he was interrogated. Petitioner states that after the interrogating officer told him he "knew without a doubt" that petitioner had started the fires, he did not feel that he was "free to leave" the interrogation room. Dckt. No. 1 at 6. Petitioner concedes that the officer told him he was "free to leave and not under arrest," but explains that he did not believe this because the officer "continued to express to me why he knew that I had committed these crimes, and made it clear to me that I was going to be charged & arrested." Id. at 8. In connection with his third ground for relief, petitioner explains that "in order for me to leave, I would've had to rely on the officers to escort me out of their office, and unlock the front door for me. Therefor, I could not leave by my own free will." Id.
The California Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that petitioner was not "in custody" when he was interrogated. The court reasoned as follows:
Nor was his freedom curtailed at the outset of the interrogation. Again, he was expressly told he could leave and that, if at any time during the examination he wanted to go home, he would be provided a ride. Thus, as the interrogation began, he was not in custody.
Resp.'s Lodg. Doc. 2 at 4-8.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibits the admission into evidence of statements given by a suspect during "custodial interrogation" without a prior warning. Id. at 444. See also Stanley v. Schriro, 598 F.3d 612, 618 (9th Cir. 2010) (Miranda warnings are required only where the suspect is "in custody"). Custodial interrogation means "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Whether a suspect is "in custody" for purposes of Miranda requires application of an objective test. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, ___ S.Ct. ___, No. 09-11121, 2011 WL 2369508, at *5 (S.Ct. June 16, 2011); Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 662-63 (2004). Two inquiries are necessary for a determination of an individual's "in custody" status under this test: (1) what were the overall circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and (2) given those circumstances, would a reasonable person in the suspect's situation have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave. J.D.B., 2011 WL 2369508 at*6; Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 662-63; Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995); Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994).
The ultimate question before this court is whether the California Court of Appeal applied Miranda in an objectively unreasonable manner when it concluded that petitioner was not "in custody" when he confessed. In making this determination, this court is bound by the following general guidelines:
Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 663. "The custody test is general." Id. at 665. Accordingly, the state court had "more leeway" in determining whether the circumstances indicated petitioner was "in custody" during his interrogation.
The decision of the California Court of Appeal is not unreasonable under these standards. The objective circumstances of petitioner's police interrogation support the state court's conclusion that petitioner was not "in custody" during his interrogation. It is significant in this regard that petitioner was repeatedly told he was free to leave. A reasonable person would understand from this that he was, in fact, free to leave. Further, as noted by the California Court of Appeal, the police interrogators did nothing to contradict this explicit statement: he was not locked into the interrogation room, although the door was apparently stuck; he was not handcuffed; he was not denied permission to leave; and he was given unsupervised breaks. Petitioner was specifically told at the beginning of the interrogation that "at any point during our conversation if you want to take off, I'll give you a ride home, I'll show you the door, whatever you want to do." Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (CT) at 231. There is no evidence petitioner would have been denied permission to leave or that the officers would have refused to open the door for him. As stated by the California Court of Appeal, "[o]bjectively, defendant remained free to terminate the interrogation and simply did not avail himself of the opportunity." Resp.'s Lodg. Doc. 2 at 6.
Petitioner states that he did not feel free to leave after the interrogating officer told him that he suspected him of starting the fires, thereby making it clear to petitioner that he was going to be charged and arrested. Dckt. No. 1 at 7, 8. On the other hand, the trial court found that petitioner's comments during the interrogation suggested he believed he was free to leave. See Reporter's Transcript on Appeal (RT) at 60 (trial judge noted that petitioner "continued to think he was leaving after the interview" in light of his comments about "when I get home" and "I'm afraid to go home."). Regardless of petitioner's state of mind, his subjective view that he was in custody during the interrogation is not dispositive of this claim. "[T]he initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned." Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323. See also J.D.B., 2011 WL 2369508, at *6 ("[t]he test, in other words, involves no consideration of the `actual mindset' of the particular suspect subjected to police questioning"); United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The [`in custody'] inquiry focuses on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the subjective views of the officers or the individual being questioned."). As noted above, the test to determine whether a suspect is "in custody" is an objective one. The objective circumstances of this interrogation were not custodial for the reasons set out in detail by the California Court of Appeal.
Petitioner also argues that the increasingly accusatory statements of the interrogating officers caused him, later in the interrogation, to believe he was not free to leave. It is true that "an officer's expressed suspicions may be relevant to the issue of custody." See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 325 ("an officer's knowledge or beliefs may bear upon the custody issue if they are conveyed, by word or deed, to the individual being questioned"). However,
Id. at 325. See also Stanley, 598 F.3d at 619 (rejecting petitioner's argument that the increasingly severe nature of the questioning rendered him "in custody"). Although the fact that the officers' remarks and questions were increasingly accusatory arguably weighs in favor of a determination that petitioner was in custody, the court of appeal's decision to the contrary was not objectively unreasonable in light of the other factors, described by that court, militating against a finding of custody.
This court concludes that the California Court of Appeal reasonably applied federal law in determining that petitioner's Miranda rights were not violated during his interrogation. See Stanley, 598 F.3d at 619. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to relief on this claim.
In his next ground for relief, petitioner claims that his statements to police should not have been admitted into evidence at his trial because they were involuntary and coerced. He states that one of the interrogating officers told him that "he would take this case to the federal system, and have me do time in federal prison" and that "he could help me avoid federal prosecution, if I confessed because he was in the position to get me state or federal time." Dckt. No. 1 at 6, 8.
The California Court of Appeal denied this claim, reasoning as follows:
Resp.'s Lodg. Doc. No. 2 at 8-10.
The Constitution demands that confessions be made voluntarily. See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 483-85 (1972). Involuntary confessions may not be used to convict criminal defendants because they are inherently untrustworthy and because society shares "the deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law; that in the end life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves." Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 320-21 (1959) . A confession is voluntary only if it is "`the product of a rational intellect and a free will.'" Medeiros v. Shimoda, 889 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 (1963)). See also Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 208 (1960). "The line of distinction is that at which governing self-direction is lost and compulsion, of whatever nature or however infused, propels or helps to propel the confession." Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411, 416 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602 (1961)). Voluntariness is to be determined in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 111 (1985); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 513 (1963). In the end the court must determine under the totality of the circumstances whether "the government obtained the statement by physical or psychological coercion or by improper inducement so that the suspect's will was overborne." Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 992 (quoting United States v. Leon Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988)). See also Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30 (1976).
Officials cannot extract a confession "by any sort of threats or violence, nor . . . by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence." Hutto, 429 U.S. at 30 (quoting Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542-43 (1897)).
This court has reviewed the transcript of petitioner's interrogation and agrees with the conclusions reached by the California Court of Appeal. There is no evidence petitioner was coerced to confess to a crime he did not commit or that he was intimidated or worn down by improper interrogation tactics, lengthy questioning, or anything else. There is also no evidence that petitioner's will was overborne by the overall circumstances or the conduct of the interrogation. As noted by the California Court of Appeal, the interrogators "did not employ trickery or deceit, they did not become unduly aggressive or threatening, and they continued to remind [petitioner] he did not have to participate in the interrogation at all." Resp.'s Lodg. Doc. 2 at 10. Petitioner was alert and articulate throughout the interrogation, he was told multiple times he was free to leave, and he took several voluntary breaks.
It is true that one of the interrogating officers mentioned the possibility that petitioner could be facing federal charges. Specifically, petitioner was told the following:
(CT at 287.)
SC: The US Attorney and the District Attorney will get together and make the decisions. We are the ones that tell them this is what we found. Here we've got a guy who's a firefighter who's having a hard time making things, making ends meet, goes out and gets drunk, you know, he, so he goes and starts a few trash fires for fun or for, for whatever, frustration maybe. That, we could say that or we could say we've got a serial arsonist. The serial arsonist is running around Redding, uh, within about a six-week period. We've got a car down the street from his house that's burned, you've got a history of stolen cars, I mean, here's a stolen car that's torched. See the point? I mean, put yourself in the position of the attorneys and they're gonna say, do we gotta guy here who's, who's a young person who's made some mistakes, who's who's had trouble in the past, is trying to get his life in order, but yet he went out and got bombed and made a few small mistakes or do we have a, do we have a, uh, honest to God arsonist running around just trying to burn things up out from under people? That's kind of what they're they're gonna be looking for. Ya know, they, they've got more than enough cases to work. We're not trying to run around, put everybody we find into jail for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years like that. But . . . ya know, we've got a situation and it's already happened, so now we've gotta try to figure out how to handle it the best we can.
Id. at 298-99. These comments could be construed as a promise that the interrogating officers would present petitioner's circumstances in a more positive light to the prosecuting authorities if he told the truth about his role in the fires. However, the police did not promise that petitioner could avoid federal prosecution if he confessed; on the contrary, petitioner was clearly advised that the prosecutors would make that decision. After reviewing the entire interrogation, it does not appear to this court that the officers' remarks about possible federal criminal prosecution caused petitioner to make an involuntary confession.
The decision of the California Court of Appeal that petitioner's confession was voluntary is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of the federal authorities set forth above. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to relief on this claim.
Petitioner's final claim is that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. His claim is stated, in its entirety, as follows:
Dckt. No. 1 at 7, 8. The court will construe these allegations as a claim that petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to support his motion to suppress with evidence that the front door to the building where petitioner was interrogated was locked before and during the interrogation because the questioning took place after business hours.
Respondent argues that this claim has not been exhausted in state court. Generally, a state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). However, a federal court considering a habeas petition may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits when it is perfectly clear that the claim is not "colorable" Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005). Assuming arguendo that petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has not been exhausted, the court will deny it on the merits.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the effective assistance of counsel. The United States Supreme Court set forth the test for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must first show that, considering all the circumstances, counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 687-88. After a petitioner identifies the acts or omissions that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment, the court must determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Id. at 690; Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003). Second, a petitioner must establish that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94. Prejudice is found where "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. A reasonable probability is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. See also Williams, 529 U.S. at 391-92; Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir. 2000). A reviewing court "need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies . . . . If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
In assessing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim "[t]here is a strong presumption that counsel's performance falls within the `wide range of professional assistance.'" Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). There is in addition a strong presumption that counsel "exercised acceptable professional judgment in all significant decisions made." Hughes v. Borg, 898 F.2d 695, 702 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). However, that deference "is predicated on counsel's performance of sufficient investigation and preparation to make reasonably informed, reasonably sound judgments." Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate either deficient performance or prejudice with respect to this claim. Petitioner has pointed to no evidence that the front door to the building where he was interrogated was locked during the interrogation, or that counsel was aware it was locked.
Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that it resulted in prejudice to petitioner, he is not entitled to relief on this claim.
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:
United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006). In this case, petitioner confessed during the initial interrogation to starting all five of the fires, was then given his Miranda warnings, and thereafter repeated his confession. This process appears to mirror the "two-step" procedure discussed in Seibert. However, there is no evidence in the record, and petitioner does not argue, that the police deliberately withheld the Miranda warnings at the beginning of the interrogation in order to undermine Miranda, or that they employed the two-step tactic "to render Miranda warnings ineffective by waiting for a particularly opportune time to give them, after the suspect has already confessed." Seibert, 542 U.S. at 611. See also Thompson v. Runnels, ___ F.3d ___, No. 08-16186, 2011 WL 2279451, at *12 (9th Cir. June 9, 2011) ("After Seibert, to determine whether post-confession warnings are effective, courts must first assess whether the two-step interrogation was a deliberate strategy."). There is also no substantial evidence that the midstream Miranda warning in this case failed to effectively apprise petitioner of his rights. See Seibert, 542 U.S. at 616; Williams, 435 F.3d at 1150 (holding, in the context of a direct appeal from a federal criminal conviction, that a trial court must suppress post-warning confessions obtained during a deliberate two-step interrogation only where the midstream Miranda warning, in light of the objective facts and circumstances, did not effectively apprise the suspect theat he had a "genuine choice whether to follow up on [his] earlier admission"). Nor is there evidence that the police questioning was coercive or resulted in involuntary statements. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985) (holding that "a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings."). In addition, as described above, and unlike the defendants in Seibert and Williams, petitioner was not "in custody" when he was questioned by police prior to receiving his Miranda warnings. For these reasons, the decision of the California Court of Appeal rejecting petitioner's claim is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Seibert.
