Demone Hamilton v. Warden

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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.
Case: 14-11541 Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.
Case: 14-11541 Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --