Michael Humphrey v. Randy Grounds

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HUMPHREY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-56634
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04035-GAF-
DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 3, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and STEIN,*** District Judge.
Michael Humphrey appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for second degree robbery. He
FILED
JUN 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Sidney H. Stein, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

argues he did not waive his Miranda rights knowingly. See Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
Our review of Humphrey’s appeal is governed by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214.
Specifically, Humphrey must establish that the state court’s decision resulted in an
unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law or an unreasonable
determination that he knowingly waived his Miranda rights. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2254(d)(1), (d)(2); see also United States v. Liera, 585 F.3d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.
2009) (finding that whether a Miranda waiver was made knowingly is a question
of fact). In determining whether the state’s decision was unreasonable, “we look to
the state’s last reasoned decision” on the merits of the claim being appealed. Avila
v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the state’s last reasoned
decision on the merits of Humphrey’s Miranda claim was the California Court of
Appeal’s unpublished opinion in People v. Humphrey, No. B178172, 2005 WL
2844804 (Cal Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2005).
Humphrey has failed to establish that the California Court of Appeal
unreasonably determined that he waived his Miranda rights knowingly. The
California Court of Appeal based its decision on the “totality of the
2

-- 2 of 4 --

circumstances.” Humphrey, 2005 WL 2844804, at *3; see United States v. Bernard
S., 795 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Whether there has been a valid [Miranda]
waiver depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the background,
experience, and conduct of defendant.”). The court determined that Humphrey had
waived his Miranda rights knowingly, because Humphrey was advised of his
Miranda rights multiple times, read them aloud himself, signed the waiver, and,
when asked by an investigating officer whether he wanted to speak, told the officer
“no.” Humphrey, 2005 WL 2844804, at *2-3. The court further noted that “[t]here
[was] no evidence of physical or psychological pressure.” Id. at *3.
Contrary to Humphrey’s arguments, the court did not discount Cowardin’s
testimony, but recounted it at length. The court based its decision, in part, on
Cowardin’s testimony that—if it were true that Humphrey had told the officer that
he did not wish to speak—Humphrey likely understood that he was waiving his
rights. Id. Additionally, Cowardin testified that Humphrey’s mental skills were
higher when the police questioned him than when she assessed him in jail nine
months later. Id.
The court did not base its decision solely on the fact that Humphrey had
refused to speak with the investigating officer, or that Humphrey had attempted to
conceal evidence of the offense, but instead considered these facts as part of the
totality of the circumstances. Id.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Humphrey has also failed to establish that the California Court of Appeals
decision 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).
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --