Case Name: Jesse Ray MAXWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-07-27
Citations: 429 F.2d 502
Docket Number: No. 24655
Parties: Jesse Ray MAXWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 429
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
Jesse Ray MAXWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 24655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 27, 1970.
Jesse Ray Maxwell, in pro. per.
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Carl Waag, Deputy Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.
Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, United States District Judge, Reno, Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
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 (1959); Piche v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 422 F.2d 1309 (1970).
The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.