Jesse Ray Maxwell v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison

Ninth Circuit

Jesse Ray Maxwell v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison

429 F.2d 502, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7990

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 1970

Docket24655

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 502 (Jesse Ray Maxwell v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesse Ray Maxwell v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison, 429 F.2d 502, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7990 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is one of many in which a district court has summarily denied habeas relief to an applicant on the basis of the factual conclusions appearing in a state appellate court’s opinion affirming the petitioner's conviction on a criminal charge.

Such short-cutting is impermissible. The proper procedure to follow, in instances where the application contains allegations of substance, has been frequently outlined by this court — see for example Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964). And we should perhaps emphasize that a district court may not dispense with an evidentiary hearing unless satisfied from an inspection of the record in a state court proceeding that the “state court trier of fact has * * * reliably found the relevant facts. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). A state appellate court’s opinion containing mere recitals of ultimate factual conclusions does not suffice. 28 U.S.C. 2254 (d). U. S. ex rel. Jennings v. Ragen, 358 U.S. 276, 79 S.Ct. 321, 3 L.Ed.2d 296 [503]*503(1959); Piche v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 422 F.2d 1309 (1970).

The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is one of many in which a district court has summarily denied habeas relief to an applicant on the basis of the factual conclusions appearing in a state appellate court’s opinion affirming the petitioner's conviction on a criminal charge.

Such short-cutting is impermissible. The proper procedure to follow, in instances where the application contains allegations of substance, has been frequently outlined by this court — see for example Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964). And we should perhaps emphasize that a district court may not dispense with an evidentiary hearing unless satisfied from an inspection of the record in a state court proceeding that the “state court trier of fact has * * * reliably found the relevant facts. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). A state appellate court’s opinion containing mere recitals of ultimate factual conclusions does not suffice. 28 U.S.C. 2254 (d). U. S. ex rel. Jennings v. Ragen, 358 U.S. 276, 79 S.Ct. 321, 3 L.Ed.2d 296 [503]*503(1959); Piche v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 422 F.2d 1309 (1970).

The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 502, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-ray-maxwell-v-frank-a-eyman-warden-arizona-state-prison-ca9-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack