Court Opinion

ID: 9500086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:10:27.939291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:53.077203
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Terebea Jean Williams appeals the district court’s denial of her habeas corpus petition. Williams asserts that this court should vacate her conviction and order a new trial because her custodial statements were admitted at trial in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply federal law in determining that any potential violation of Williams’s Miranda rights was excused under California’s rescue doctrine. While the questioning of Williams may have been investigatory in nature as to not fall within the “public safety” exception set out in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), “fair-minded jurists could disagree.” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). The state court’s finding that the officers were prompted by a concern for rescue does not violate “clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.

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