Opinion ID: 2790618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the Miranda Waiver

Text: All agree that Mr. Matthews was intoxicated when he talked to the police. Based in part on this intoxication, Mr. Matthews moved to suppress the evidence of his statements, arguing that he was unable to understand his Miranda rights. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. 1 In doing so, the trial court found that Mr. Matthews had understood the warnings when he waived his Miranda rights. Tr. Mot. to Suppress 134, 137-39, Colo. v. Matthews, No. 07-CR-1097 (Adams Cnty., Colo. Dist. Ct. Nov. 30, 2007). “Whether [Mr. Matthews] understood his Miranda rights is a question of fact.” Valdez v. Ward, 219 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 2000). Because the state district court decided this factual question, we regard the court’s finding as presumptively correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (2012). To rebut this presumption, Mr. Matthews had to present clear and convincing evidence that the court’s factual determination was incorrect. Id. Mr. Matthews did not present any such evidence to the federal district court or to us. In state court, one detective testified that Mr. 1 The record on appeal does not include the proceedings on the motion to suppress. But, we take judicial notice of these proceedings. See Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134, 1137 n.1 (10th Cir. 2015). 3 Matthews had been oriented to his surroundings and had given responsive answers. Tr. Mot. to Suppress 52-53, Colo. v. Matthews, No. 07-CR-1097 (Adams Cnty., Colo. Dist. Ct. Nov. 30, 2007). Another officer added that Mr. Matthews had acknowledged he understood his rights, had not expressed an inability to understand the discussion, and had answered in a manner that was appropriate and responsive. Id. at 72-74, 83-84. Under these circumstances, any reasonable jurist would conclude that Mr. Matthews failed to rebut the presumption of correctness with clear and convincing evidence.