Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Determinations, Both Express and Implied, Enjoy a Heavy Deference

Text: Challenges to the state court finding of facts are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(I). As to factual determinations, [i]n a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The express and implied factual determinations by the state trial court and California Supreme Court are entitled to deference. Factual determinations by state courts are presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Clear and convincing evidence within the meaning of § 2254(e) requires greater proof than preponderance of the evidence and must produce an abiding conviction that the factual contentions being advanced are highly probable. Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir.2004) (quotation omitted). The presumption of correctness applies not only to express findings of fact, but also applies equally to unarticulated findings that are necessary to the state court's conclusions of mixed questions of fact and law. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 433, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983) (application of presumption to a credibility determination which was implicit in rejection of defendant's claim). Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, a fact finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 226, 108 S.Ct. 1771, 100 L.Ed.2d 249 (1988)