Opinion ID: 752168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements to Charles Blair

Text: 39 Pursuant to court order from the Kay County District Court, Charles Blair, an employee of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' Probation and Parole Division, visited Mr. Castro in January and February 1984 to conduct a presentence investigation for the Pappan murder conviction. Blair read Mr. Castro his Miranda rights, and, in the course of several interviews, Mr. Castro made incriminating statements. 7 Mr. Castro had not received a court-appointed lawyer in the Cox murder at the time the statements were made. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the confession was the product of [Castro's] free and unconstrained choice. Castro, 844 P.2d at 171. 40 Mr. Castro argues that the statements were not voluntary because he was not represented by counsel at the time they were made, because he was most likely incompetent at the time, and because they were made in connection with a presentence investigation conducted following his guilty plea, later withdrawn, to the murder of Ms. Pappan, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2410. Under § 2410, inculpatory statements made in the course of plea negotiations are inadmissible at a defendant's criminal trial. The district court found that: 41 Castro initiated conversation regarding the Cox murder during a February 21, 1984 pre-sentence interview with Blair pertaining to the Pappan murder case. When Castro mentioned the Cox murder, Blair stopped the conversation and read Castro his rights under Miranda. Once Castro stated he understood his rights, Blair allowed Castro to continue discussing the Cox case. 42 Memorandum Op. and Order at 44, R. Vol. I at Tab 24 (footnotes omitted). The district court accordingly held that Castro knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at the time he made the statement to Blair. Id. Our review of the record supports that conclusion. After reading Mr. Castro his Miranda rights, Blair asked him if he understood them. Blair testified that Mr. Castro responded that he did and that he wanted to talk. Blair also testified that it really wasn't much of an interview from that point on.... Mr. Castro just started talking about various and sundry things. R. Vol. XIX at 2743. When asked if there was any time during the interview when Mr. Castro expressed reluctance or tried to stop the interview, Blair testified [n]o. Id. at 2744. The district court correctly concluded that Mr. Castro's statement to Blair was freely and voluntarily given. 43 With respect to his competency, the district court held there is nothing in the record that suggests [Castro] was not rational, lucid, or able to exercise judgment when he decided to continue talking to Blair after being advised of his rights. Memorandum Op. and Order at 44, R. Vol. I at Tab 24. Again, the record supports that conclusion. 44 Finally, with respect to the claimed violation of § 2410, the district court correctly observed that federal habeas relief is not available for violations of state law. See Matthews v. Price, 83 F.3d 328, 331 (10th Cir.1996). Thus, even were we to conclude that § 2410 had been violated, that would provide no basis for granting Mr. Castro's habeas petition.