Lomel Antoine Hamilton v. L. S. MCEWEN, Warden of Kern Valley State Prison

This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOMEL ANTOINE HAMILTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
L. S. MCEWEN, Warden of Kern
Valley State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-56814
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04960-JFW-CT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and WATFORD, Circuit
Judges.
Lomel Hamilton claims that officers violated his Miranda rights and that the
state court therefore erred in admitting his confession at trial. See Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).
FILED
AUG 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
Relying on Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983), and Edwards v.
Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the state court of appeal concluded that Hamilton
initiated the phone call during which he confessed out of a desire to have a
generalized discussion about the investigation and that he knowingly and
intelligently waived his previously invoked right to have counsel present during
police interrogation. Neither of those determinations represents “a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1). As a result, we are bound by the state court of appeal’s finding of
waiver.
Since Hamilton waived his right to counsel, the trial court didn’t err in
admitting his confession into evidence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --