Carl Dwayne Bishop v. Anthony Hedgpeth

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).
EOH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL DWAYNE BISHOP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55193
D.C. No. CV-04-00014-DSF
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Carl Dwayne Bishop appeals from the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EOH/Research 08-55193 2
Bishop contends that the prosecutor’s statements during a pretrial interview
constituted a promise of leniency that rendered his confession involuntary.
However, “in most circumstances, speculation that cooperation will benefit the
defendant or even promises to recommend leniency are not sufficiently compelling
to overbear a defendant’s will.” United States v. Harrison, 34 F.3d 886, 891 (9th
Cir. 1994). The state court’s determination that Bishop’s statement was not
coerced was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Withrow v. Williams, 507
U.S. 680, 693-94 (1993) (providing factors relevant to evaluate possible coercion).
We construe Bishop’s additional argument as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir.
R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104–05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --