Robert Mata v. George W. Sumner, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin

Robert Mata appeals from the District Court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition followed Mata’s murder conviction in California state court and his exhaustion of all available state court remedies. We reverse.

I.

In this opinion we endeavor for the third time to set forth the factual and legal bases for our firm conclusion that impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic identification procedures violated Mata’s constitutional right to due process of law. The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded our initial disposition, Mata v. Sumner, 611 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.1979), citing our failure to apply the presumption of correctness mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) to the factual determinations made by the California Court of Appeal in this case. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 547 , 101 S.Ct. 764, 769 , 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). On remand we considered the state court’s factual determinations in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) and concluded that, because we “substantially agree[d]” with the historical or basic facts adduced by the California court, the requirement of explaining by reasoned written references the justification for dispensing with…

dissenting:

Reluctantly and respectfully I must dissent for the third time in this case.

Eleven courts have considered various aspects of petitioner Mata’s claims. Only this court, on three separate occasions, has responded favorably.

Mata was convicted of first-degree murder in the Superior Court of Kern County, California. He appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District, where he alleged for the first time that his constitutional rights were violated by the pretrial identification procedures discussed in the majority opinion. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and made specific findings of fact concerning Mata’s claims. Mata filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Marin County, California. That court denied the petition, as did the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District and the California Supreme Court.

Finally, Mata sought collateral review in the federal courts. The district court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus. This court twice gave judgment in favor of Mata, 611 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.1979); 649 F.2d 713 (9th Cir.1981), and twice had its opinion vacated and remanded by…

696 F.2d 1244 Robert MATA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George W. SUMNER, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. No. 78-2636. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 15, 1979. Decided Jan. 20, 1983. Lennie Stein, Cal. State Public Defender, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. Jamie Jacobs-May, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before ELY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and TAKASUGI, * District Judge. ELY, Circuit Judge: 1 Robert Mata appeals from the District Court's denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition followed Mata's murder conviction in California state court and his exhaustion of all available state court remedies. We reverse. I. 2 In this opinion we endeavor for the third time to set forth the factual and legal bases for our firm conclusion that impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic identification procedures violated Mata's constitutional right to due process of law. The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded our initial disposition, Mata v.…