T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E VE N R AY P E R R I DO N, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. ERNI E R OE, W a r d e n ; ATTORNEY GE NE R AL OF T HE S T AT E OF C AL I F ORNI A, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16940 D. C . No . 2 : 0 0 - c v - 0 1 1 2 3 - L KK J FM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e K . K a r l t on, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r4, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , R Y M E R an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t e ve n R a y P e rr i don ( “ pe t i t i one r ” ) , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 h abea s pet i t i on chal l engi ng hi s j ury conv i ct i on for ni ne robb er i es (C al . P enal C od e § 21 1) and o ne att em pt ed robb ery 

# FI LED JAN 14 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

( C a l. P e n a l C o d e § § 2 1 1 , 6 6 4 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 . B e c aus e the pe t i t i on w a s f i l e d a f t e rA pr i l 24, 1996, w e r e vi e w i tunde rthe An t i t e rr o r i s m a n d E f

f e c t i v e De a th P e n a l ty Ac t( “ AE DP A” ) . Un d e rAE DP A, we m ayon l y grantthe pet i t i on i f the st at e c ou rtdeci si on “ w as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, ” c l earl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtl aw or “ w as b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e . ” 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ; B

y rd v . L e w is , 5 6 6 F .3 d8 5 5 , 8 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . W e a f f irm . T he C a l i f

orni aC ourtof

A ppe a l ’ s de c i s i on tha tpe t i t i one r ’ s F i f th A m e ndm e nt r i ght s w e r e notvi ol a t e d w a s notc ontr a ry t o ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d S upr e m e C our tl a w . P ol i c e of f i c e r s m us tc e a s e que s t i oni ng a s us pe c tw ho ha s c l e a r l y a rt i c ul a t e d tha the w a nt s a n a tt orne y pr e s e ntdur i ng the c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n . E dw ards v . A r i z ona , 4 5 1 U. S. 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 - 8 5 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . To i n v o k e th e ri g h tt o co u n sel , a su sp ectm u stcl earl y an d u n am b i g u o u sl y req u est c ouns e l , w hi c h m e a ns tha the “ m us ta r t i c ul a t e hi s de s i r e t o ha ve c ouns e l pr e s e nt s u f f ic ie n tly c le a r ly th a t ar e a s o n ab le p o lic e o f f ic e rin th e c ir c u m s tan c e s w o u ld un ders t and the st at em entt o b e are qu es tfor a n att orney. ” D avis v . U ni ted Stat es , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . “[ I ]f as u s p e c t m a k e s ar e f

e r e n c e to a n a tto rn e y th a t is am bi gu ou s or e qu i vo ca l i n thata r ea sonabl e off i ce r i n l i gh tof the ci rc um st ance s3

w o u ld h a v e u n d e r s to o d o n ly th a t th e s u s p e c t m i ght b e in v o k in g th e r ig h t to c o u n s e l,” c e s s a tio n o f

q u e s tio n in g is n o t r e q u ir e d . Id . T he C a l i f

orni aC ourtof

A ppe a l ’ s de c i s i on tha tpe t i t i one rdi d notc l e a r l y a nd un equi vo ca l l y i nv ok e hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel w as no tcontraryt o cl earl y e st abl i shed S upr e m e C ourtl a w . P e t i t i one r ’ s s t a t e m e nttha the w oul d nota ns w e rque s t i ons w i tho utan att orney w as am bi gu ou s und erthe ci rc um st ance s. W hen d et ec t i ves i ni t i a l l y c ont a c t e d pe t i t i one r , he vol unt a r i l y a gr e e d t o a ns w e rque s t i ons a tthe po l i ce st at i on . U po n arr i vi ng atthe st at i on , pet i t i on ertw i ce re qu es t ed a c i gare tt e, expl ai ni ng thathe w ou l d b e m ore r el axed and coo pera t i ve i f he c ou l d sm ok e. It w a s onl y a f

t e rthe de t e c t i ve de c l i ne d a nd e xpl a i ne d tha tthe y w e r e i n anons m o k in g f

a c ility th a t p e titio n e rm e n tio n e d ac ig a r e tte a n d a n a tto rn e y . See Sm i th v. I llin o is , 4 6 9 U .S . 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 0 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( in d ic a tin g th a t c ir c u m s ta n c e s le a d in g u p to the re qu es tm ayre nd era r equestam bi gu ou s) . A s pet i t i on er ’ s s t at em entw as a m bi guous , the de t e c t i ve c oul d a s k hi m t o c l a r i f y hi s de m a nd. Se e D a v is , 5 1 2 U . S. a t 4 5 9 ; A nde rs on v . T

e rhune , 516 F . 3d 781, 789 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . W he n he di d, pe t i t i one rs t a t e d, “ he l p m e out , I ’ l l he l p y ou out . I t ’ s a s s i m pl e a s tha tm a n. . . G i ve m e ac ig a r e tte m a n , that ’s al l I ’ m as ki ng . ” A f

t e rthe de t e c t i ve a s s ur e d hi m tha the co u l d sm o k e fo l l o w i n g th e i n t erv i ew , p et i t i o n er w ai v ed h i s Mi r anda r i ght s a nd answ er ed the det ec t i ve’ s quest i on s, i nd i ca t i ng thathi s true a i m w as t o sec ure a4

c i ga r e tt e i n e xc ha nge f

ors pe a ki ng. T hus , i tw a s notunr e a s onabl e f orthe C a lif o rn iaC o u rt o f

A p p e a l to c o n c lu d e th a t be c aus e pe t i t i one rdi d not une qui voc a l l y i nvoke hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l , the pol i c e w e r e notr e qui r e d t o e nd que s t i oni ng. T he courtdecl i nes t o add re ss pet i t i on er ’ s uncert i fi ed i ss ue on appeal , as there i s no “ subst ant i al show i ng of the deni al of a c on st i tut i on al ri gh t . ” See 28 U .S .C . 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) ; Mendez v . Kno w les , 55 6 F . 3d 75 7, 77 0 (9 C i r. 20 09 ). th A F F I R M E D .