Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02117/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Archuleta
Appellant
Dareld Kerby
Appellee

Document Text:

( 

MICHAEL ARCHULETA, 

.. PUBLISH 

UNITED STi\TES ·· ·couRT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ·· ~ENTH CIRCUIT 

Petitioner-Appellaht, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Untt.ed am~!! Ctlurt of Appeall\ Tenth Ctrr.uit 

JAN 0 31989 

ROBERTL.HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. . ) No. 87-2117 

DARELD KERBY , Warden, 

Central, N. M. Correctional 

Facility , 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico .. 

(D.C. No. CIV 86-0492-HB) 

Stephe n P . McCue, Assistant Fe d eral Publi c Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico , for Pet itioner-Appellant. 

William McEuen , Assistant Attorney General (Hal Strat ton, Attorney 

General, with him on the brief), Santa Fe, New Mexico, for 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Jud ge , ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge . 

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 1 
Michael Archuleta appeals from an order of the United States 

District Court for the District of New Mex ico denying his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus. The issue on appeal is whether his 

due process rights were violated by the introduction at his trial 

of testimony concerning a show-up identification in which he was 

shown to \Jitnesses while he was handcuffed and seated in a police 

car and t he introduction of a subsequent in-court identification 

by those \vitnesses. We conclude that his due process rights were 

not viol ated. Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of 

habeas corpus relief. 

In Sept embe r 1985, petitioner was convicted by a jury of 

automob ile burglary and larceny under $100.00 for breaking into a 

van and t aking a bag full of quarters. He was sentenced to a 

total oE two years in prison for the crimes. His sentence 

subsequently was increased to eight years after it was determined 

that he was an habit ual offender. He appealed to the New Mexico 

Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction. The New Mexico 

Supreme Cour t denied certiorari. He then filed a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico claiming that he had been subjected to an 

illega l search and seizure, that there was lack of probable cause 

for the arrest, and that the show- up identification was improper . 

The district court dismissed the petition pursuant to 28 u.s.c . 

§ 2254, adopting the findings of a United States magistrate. 

The relevant undisputed fac ts leading to petitioner's 

convi cti on are as f ollows. Ph i lip Madrid III, and his father, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 2 
Philip Madrid, Jr ., operated a coin machine business in 

Al buque rque, New Mexico. On Oc tober 10, 1984 , after completing 

the ir mo rning rounds , the Madrids were eating breakfast in a 

restau ran t. Mad rid III looked ou t the window of the restaurant 

and saw a man and a woman near the Madrids' van, in which the 

Mad rids had left approxima tely $60 .00 in quarters in a bank bag. 

Madrid III saw the man break the window of the van with a tire 

i ron and reach into the van . 

The Madrids t hen ran out of the r e staurant and yelled at the 

ma n and the woman. Mad rid III saw the fa ce of the man and no ticed 

that he had a bank bag tucked i n h i s belt. Madrid III then chased 

t he ma n and sto pped the car in whi ch the man was trying to escape. 

When the man got out of the ca r, Madrid III had an unobstructed 

vi ew of him from about ten fe et away and looked straigh t into his 

face . Madrid I II then pursued the man on f oot for about 500 

ya rds, observing his b uild and cloth ing un til he lost him in a 

t railer park. In total , Madrid III was able to obser ve the man 

fo r approxima tel y two minutes . 

When the police arrived at the sce ne of the crime, the 

Mad rids gave them a des cript ion of t he man who had broken into the 

van. Madrid III described him as app roximately 5 1 9 " tall, a 

Spanish male with da rk hair and a mustache , wearing a bla ck t -

shirt with some type of emblem on it and blue jeans. Madrid , Jr. 

gave the police a simil ar description , although he estimated that 

the man was approximately 5' 7 " tall . 

Based on the Madrids' description of the thief, the police 

de tained Arch ule ta and brought him back to the scene of t he crime 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 3 
approximatel y thir ty minutes after the inc i dent. ·The police 

displayed Archuleta to the Madr ids while he was handcu ffed and 

seated i n the back seat of a police car, and the Madrids 

positively identified him as the perpetrator. 

Before petitioner's trial, Archuleta's trial attorney moved 

to s uppress any testimony concerni ng the show-up identification 

and any i n-court identification by the Madri ds. She argued that 

displaying Archuleta in a show- up identifi cation while handcuffed 

in a police car among un ifo rmed police officers was so suggestive 

that introduction of evidence of it would violate Archuleta's due 

process r ights. She also argued that the suggestive show-up 

taint ed any subsequen t identification by the Madrids. The state 

conceded t hat the show- up was suggestive but a r gued tha t in the 

circumstances of this case it was reliable. The trial court 

admitted testimony rega rding the show-up identificat ion , and bo th 

Madr id III and his father made positive identifications of 

Archuleta at the trial. Archu l eta contends that the introduction 

of this ev idence violated his due process r ights. 

Initially, we must determine the appropriate standard of 

review . The Supreme Court has held that the ultimate conclusion 

of the constitutionality of i dentification procedures is a mixed 

quest ion of law and fact and, as such, is subject to plena ry 

review. Sumner v . Mata, 455 U. S . 591, 597 (1982). Therefore, we 

r evi ew the conclusion that Archuleta's due process right s were not 

violated de novo. Nevertheless, as discussed below, t here are a 

number of factual determinations made by the state trial court 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 4 
which underlie this conclusion.! These factual findings are 

entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 22 54 (d} . Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47 (1981) . 2 

In examining the const i tutionality of an identification 

procedure, a court must address two issues. The first issue is 

whether the identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive. 

1 On the motion to suppress the identification testimony, the 

state trial judge specifically found that Madr i d III had at least 

two face-to-face opportunities to view petitioner prior to the 

challenged show-up; that Madrid III's attention was "totally 

focused" on petitioner during the above face-to-face 

confrontations; that Madrid III's original identifi cation was 

accurate; and, that the show-up occurred approximately thirty 

minute? after the break-in. Because petitioner has failed to 

establish by convincing ev idence tha t these determinations are 

erroneous, we presume them to be correct . See Ewing v. Winans, 

749 F.2d 607 , 609 (lOth Cir. 1984). 

2 Besides relying on the factual findings of the state trial 

court, the United States magistrate below reviewed the trial 

reco r d and made the following factual fi ndings: 

Mr. Madrid III identifi ed Petitioner at t he show-up with 

a high degree of certainty. • • • Mr. Madrid Jr. had 

two brief un-obstructed views in broad daylight of 

Petitioner ' s features, clothing and stature from 

distances of approximately forty and thirty feet; that 

Mr. Madrid Jr.'s attention was focused on Petitioner at 

the time Mr . Mad rid Jr. observed Petitioner immediately 

after the break-in; that Mr. Madrid Jr. unhesitatingly 

identified Petitioner at the show-up based on 

Petitioner's distinctive t-shirt and fac ial 

charact eristics; and, that the show-up occurred 

approximately thirty minutes after the break-in . • . • 

The magistrate's factual findings are not e ntitled to the 

statu tory presumption of correctness under section 2254(d}. To 

the ex tent that they are based on live testimony of witnesses, the 

''clear ly er roneous" standard applies. To the extent that the 

find ings are based merely on the magistrate's review of the state 

record, the clearly erroneous standard does not apply with full 

for ce . See Castleberry v. Alford, 666 F.2d 1338, 1342 n.2 (lOth 

Cir. 1981). Because we find that the magistrate's findings were 

based on its review of the trial record r ather than on new 

testimony, we have conducted our own independent review of the 

record on these points. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 5 
In this ca s e the d i strict court found, and the sta te has conceded, 

that the show-up p r oced ure was unnecessarily suggestive. 

Even if an identification procedu r e is suggestive, the 

introduction of the identification evidence does not neces sari ly 

violate a defendant's due process rights. United States v . 

Williams, 60 5 F.2d 495, 498 (lOth Cir.), cert. deni ed, 444 u.s. 

932 (1 97 9) . The central inquiry is " whe ther under the totality of 

the ci rcumstances the i den t ific ation was reliable . " Neil v. 

Biggers, 409 u.s. 188, 199 (1972). See also Manso n v. Brathwa ite , 

43 2 u.s. 98, 11 4 (1977) (" r eliabil ity is the linchpin i n 

determining the a dmissibility o f identification testimony"). 

The Supreme Court has set forth five f actors to be considered 

when e va luating the re liabili ty of identification procedures: 

1 . The opportunity of the witness to vi ew the criminal at 

the time of the crime: 

2. The wi tness' d eg ree of a tten tion : 

3. The accuracy o f the witness' prior d escri ptio n of t he 

criminal; 

4 . The leve l of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the 

confrontation; and 

5 . The length of time between the crime and the 

c o nfro ntation. 

Nei l v . Bi ggers , 409 U.S. 188 , 199- 200 (19 7 2) . See also Manson v. 

Brat hwai te , 43 2 U.S. 98 (1977). Th is cou r t must balance t hes e 

five factors against the '' corruptive effect" of t he identification 

procedures in order to det ermine whethe r the identificatio n 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 6 
testimony shoul d have been suppr essed. Manson, 432 U.S. at 114; 

United States v. Thurston, 771 F.2d 449, 453 (lOth Cir. 1985}. 

An exami nation o f the five factors in this case reveals t hat 

the identification procedure did not create a " very s ubstantial 

like lihood of .•. misidentification," Neil v. Bigge rs, 409 U.S. 

at 198 (quo ting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 

(1968) ), and therefore did not violate petitioner's due process 

rights. 

First , the Madrids had ample opportunity to view the criminal 

at the time of the crime. Madrid III saw him through the 

r estauran t window, conf ron ted him face-to-face twice, and observed 

his features and build whi le chasing him. The total observation 

time was about two minutes. This is about the same amo unt of time 

tha t was held sufficient in Manson (two to three minutes) . See 

also O'Brien v. Wainwright, 738 F.2d 1139, 1141 (11th Cir. 1984) 

{close-up view for seconds was sufficient), cert. den ied, 469 U.S. 

1162 (1985) ; United States v. Burnette , 698 F.2d 1038, 1046 (9th 

Cir. ) {twe lve seconds of unobstructed observation at close range 

was su ff icient), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 936 (1983). Although 

Madrid, Jr.'s observation of the criminal was not as extensive, he 

t estified tha t he had two brief, unobst ructed views of the 

criminal ' s features , build, and clothing fr om thirty to forty feet 

away. Also , his description of the criminal was substantially 

similar t o his son' s descript ion. 

Second, both Madrid III and his father testified t hat their 

at tention was focus ed on.the criminal. Their a bility to recall a 

number of descr iptive details supports this testimony. The state 

-7-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 7 
tri a l court specifically found that Madrid III's attention was 

"totally focused" on the perpetrator. 

Th ird, as the state trial court foundF the Madrids' 

descr i ptio n o f Archuleta was accura te . They accurately described 

him as a Span ish male wi th dark hair and a mustache, wearing a 

black r-sh irt with an emblem and blue jeans. While it is true 

t hat they both overestimated his height and did not tell t he 

po lice abou t his ta ttoos, th ese appea r to be minor e rrors. 

Four t h, the Ma drids were very ce rtai n when they i niti ally 

identified Archuleta as the criminal and when they testified at 

t rial. Their identification has been unequivocal at all times. 

Fi f th, the Madr i ds i dentified Ar chulet a approximately thirty 

mi nu tes after the crime. This is a very sho r t i n terva l of time, 

whi c h adds to t he r eliability of the identifi cation. This 

interval is much shorter than the seven months in Neil a nd the two 

days in Manson, which the Supr eme Court held wer e not too long. 

See also United St a tes v. Shoels, 685 F . 2d 379, 38 5 (lOth Cir. 

1982) (two mo nth interval was not a substantial amount of time 

which would impede identification), cert. denied, 46 2 u.s. 1134 

(1983) ; Lavernia v . Lynaugh, 845 F . 2d 493, 500 {5th Ci r& 1988) 

(identification ove r a year after crime was re l iable} ; United 

States v. Wilson, 787 F.2d 375, 386 (8th Cir . ) ( fo ur months was 

not t oo long} , cert. denied, 479 u.s. 857 (1986) ; United States v . 

Burke , 738 F . 2d 1225, 1229 (llth Cir. 1984) (two months). 

We conc lude tha t all five fa c tors support the reliability of 

the iden tification in t his case and outwe igh the suggestiveness o f 

the identification procedu re . Because the "totality o f the 

-8-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 8 
circumstances" strongly indicates that the identification was 

reliable, we agree with the district court that the admission of 

t he i dentification evidence did not deprive petitioner of due 

process. 

AFFIRMED. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 87-2117 Document: 01019674112 Date Filed: 01/03/1989 Page: 9