Yarborough v. Alvarado
Supreme Court of the United States
March 1, 2004, Argued ; June 1, 2004, Decided
[*655] [**2144] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
LEdHN[1A] [1A] LEdHN[2A] [2A] HN1 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat 1214, a federal court can grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person held pursuant to a state-court judgment if the state-court adjudication "resulted in 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)[28 USCS § 2254(d)(1)]. The United [****9] States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a state court unreasonably applied clearly established law when it held that the respondent was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F.3d 841 (2002). We disagree and reverse.
Paul Soto and respondent Michael Alvarado attempted to steal a truck in the parking lot of a shopping mall in Santa [*656] Fe Springs, California. Soto and Alvarado were part of a larger group of teenagers at the mall that night. Soto decided to steal the truck, and Alvarado agreed to help. Soto pulled out a .357 Magnum and approached the driver, Francisco Castaneda, who was standing near the truck emptying trash into a dumpster. Soto demanded money and the ignition keys from Castaneda. Alvarado, then five months [**2145] short of his 18th birthday, approached the passenger side door of the truck and crouched down. When Castaneda refused to comply with Soto's demands, Soto shot Castaneda, killing him. Alvarado then helped hide Soto's gun.
Los Angeles County Sheriff's detective Cheryl Comstock led the investigation into the circumstances of Castaneda's death. About a month after the shooting, Comstock left word at Alvarado's [****10] house and also contacted Alvarado's mother at work with the message that she wished to speak with Alvarado. Alvarado's parents brought him to the Pico Rivera Sheriff's Station to be interviewed around lunchtime. They waited in the lobby while Alvarado went with Comstock to be interviewed. Alvarado contends that his parents asked to be present during the interview but were rebuffed. Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
541 U.S. 652 *; 124 S. Ct. 2140 **; 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 ***; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 3843 ****; 72 U.S.L.W. 4415; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327
MICHAEL YARBOROUGH, WARDEN, Petitioner v. MICHAEL ALVARADO
Subsequent History: [****1]
On remand at, Subsequent appeal at Alvarado v. Hickman, 110 Fed. Appx. 41, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19497 (9th Cir., Sept. 17, 2004)
Prior History: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F.3d 841, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26131 (9th Cir. Cal., 2002)
custody, interview, interrogation, questioning, reasonable person, arrest, circumstances, Appeals, state court, station, cases, police officer, per curiam, juvenile, shooting, courts, clearly established law, objective test, police station, free to leave, the Miranda, state-court, helped, murder, make clear, quotation, terminate, purposes, driver, marks
Criminal Law & Procedure, Review, Standards of Review, General Overview, Jurisdiction, Cognizable Issues, Threshold Requirements, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Self-Incrimination Privilege, Miranda Rights, Self-Incrimination Privilege, Custodial Interrogation, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Interrogation, Criminal Offenses, Vehicular Crimes, Driving Under the Influence, De Novo Review