Demone Hamilton v. Warden, No. 14-11541 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-11541 Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-11541 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-03319-RLV DEMONE HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (December 18, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-11541 Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Demone Hamilton, a Georgia prisoner serving 2 consecutive life sentences, plus concurrent sentences of 20 and 5 years, appeals from the district court’s denial of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted Hamilton a certificate of appealability on whether his right to due process was violated when Detective Dean told the jury that Hamilton refused to provide a post-arrest and post-Miranda statement. Hamilton argues that the detective’s testimony infringed on his right to remain silent and denied him due process. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 2010). However, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Trotter v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 535 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2008). It is questionable whether Hamilton fairly presented this claim to the state courts, but, even if he did, his claim would fail on the merits, and we may affirm on that ground. See Trotter, 535 F.3d at 1291. Hamilton does not dispute the facts of the testimony at trial. Detective Dean’s testimony at trial reveals that Hamilton did provide a post-Miranda statement, and, consequently, there can be no prejudice from the detective’s comments on Hamilton’s right to remain silent, as Hamilton never exercised that right. Therefore, Hamilton has not shown a violation of his right to remain silent or a denial of due process. 2 Case: 14-11541 Date Filed: 12/18/2015 AFFIRMED. 3 Page: 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
