Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Derrick Lee SLEDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 15, 2010.
    Filed Jan. 27, 2010.
    Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Derrick Lee Sledge, pro se.
    Gary Brozio, Matthew Mulford, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ben Curry is substituted for L.R. Blanks as Warden.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Derrick Sledge, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues the state court improperly denied his motion to suppress statements he made to police without first being advised of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state court determined that Miranda warnings were not necessary because Sledge was not “in custody” when two police officers temporarily detained and briefly questioned him in the lobby of a bank before they arrested him. See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). The state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); cf. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); United States v. Woods, 720 F.2d 1022, 1029-30 (9th Cir.1983). Therefore, the district court properly denied relief.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.