Opinion ID: 1038437
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether burch’s statement was voluntary

Text: Whether a confession was voluntary is a question of law. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 110, 106 S. Ct. 445, 449 (1985). Thus, under the AEDPA habeas standard, we are required to determine whether the state court’s legal determination of voluntariness was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Land v. Allen, 573 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009). In doing so we take into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. The state court’s conclusion that Burch’s statement was voluntary was neither an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, nor was it contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. Burch came to the Sheriff’s Office voluntarily and on his own initiative. See Lawhorn v. Allen, 519 F.3d 1272, 1291 (11th Cir. 2008) (suspect’s initiation of conversations with law enforcement indicated voluntariness). He repeatedly emphasized his desire to tell the detectives about his 5 Because we determine that the state court’s custody ruling was not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court precedent, we need not address Burch’s second argument that his Miranda warnings were constitutionally deficient. See California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1124, 103 S. Ct. 3517, 3519 (1983) (“The police are required to give Miranda warnings only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him in custody.” (quotation marks omitted)). 11 Case: 12-14828 Date Filed: 08/23/2013 Page: 12 of 13 role in Patrick’s death. See Owen v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 686 F.3d 1181, 1195 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2049 (2013) (suspect’s desire to speak with police indicated voluntariness). The detectives did not confront Burch with any evidence of guilt; indeed, Burch led the conversation throughout. And although a plea bargain was briefly discussed, after reviewing the record we agree with the state court’s determination that the detectives made no promises, explicit suggestions of leniency, or express quid pro quo bargains in return for Burch’s confession.6 Cf. United States v. Nash, 910 F.2d 749, 752–53 (11th Cir. 1990) (promise to make cooperation known to the United States Attorney’s Office with no guarantee of more lenient treatment is not an illegal inducement to a confession).