Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sylvia GARCIA, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-55558.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
    Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
    Ronald S. Smith, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Steven Edward Mercer, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Hernandez, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for first degree murder, robbery, and attempted murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that his videotaped statements to police were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated when the trial court admitted the statements. We disagree.

The record supports the California Court of Appeal’s determination that Hernandez voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). We conclude that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (d)(2); see also Spring, 479 U.S. at 577, 107 S.Ct. 851.

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