Supreme Court of the United States
Sumner v. Mata
January 21, 1981449 U.S. 539
Summary
The Court held that the statutory presumption of correctness under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) applies to factual determinations made by state appellate courts after reviewing the trial record. A federal habeas court that grants relief must provide a reasoned written explanation identifying the applicable statutory exception or explaining why the state finding is not fairly supported by the record. The Court vacated and remanded without deciding whether the challenged identification procedure violated due process.
Holding
- Application of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) to state appellate findings. The presumption of correctness in § 2254(d) applies to factual determinations made by a state appellate court, as well as to determinations made by a state trial court, when the statutory requirements for a hearing on the merits are satisfied.
- Required explanation for granting federal habeas relief despite § 2254(d). When a federal habeas court grants relief notwithstanding § 2254(d), it must include in its opinion the reasoning supporting the conclusion that one of the statutory exceptions applies or that the relevant state-court factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
Docket 79-1601
Cited authorities
- Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
- 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cited by
- Tara Sheneva Williams, Petitioner-Appellant v. Deborah K. Johnson
- Craig Wesley Moon v. State of Maryland
- State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons (Slip Opinion)
- Matthews 428903 v. Carl
- Darrell Wayland Gilliam, Jr. Pamela Owings James Matthew Swain v. James Lee Foster
- Ronnie Howard v. Michael W. Moore
- Gregory Mills, Petitioner-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, Jr.
- Itt Corporation; Itt Sheraton Corporation; Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. Appellants v. Intelnet…