d in this case that this record did not even know what the state court decision the last reason the state court decision was predicated upon instead it held  evidentiary hearing with additional evidence that was never presented before any state court and found in the state court opinion was unreasonable because it lacked the benefit of an based on the evidence before the state court if we find that the city court acted unreasonably based on the evidence that the state courts have before the ordering of an evidentiary hearing when the district court is harmless error yes your honor i would think that that would be correct if it if this court were to determined or if the district court had determined that the event her county superior courts reason opinion last reason opinion in this case was unreasonable based on the evidence presented to the court then of course the finding the further findings taken in an evidentiary hearing would not and here he says the court has reviewed read in considered the petition including exhibits one through five and clues of the return and the traverse what were these exhibits one through five exhibits one through five your honor included felony disposition the change of pleas hearing transcript transcript sentencing transcript i believe the initial complaint they're all referenced in the course findings that's correct answer any request by this petitioner in state court personally to appear and to testify not to my knowledge or our so what we've got here is a finding of fact the court finds that's the finding of fact that the petitioner well knew this meaning he was pleading guilty to the to the higher sentence so that's a finding of fact in your position i guess is that under the under the fig that that that's not an unreasonable determination in the light of evidence presented in the state court proceeding that's calling for a written acceptance by petition for a fifteen year maximum term as prepared by the prosecutor you only relevant evidence would be whether the offer was accepted everything else about what the petitioner knew or did not know would be subject to the unexpressed intent of the parties and relevant to the formation of a contract with if indeed that were correct yes you're wrong well let's discuss the formation of a contract under california law first of all federal law of us supreme court requires that plea bargains later ratified by the question and answer at the sentencing hearing in january of ninety eight did not mention fifteen to life it mentioned fifteen is the maximum term we in court and making a declaration but by signing the felony disposition form and initialing it that was the requested and bargain for acceptance of correct asked for him to acknowledge his acceptance that everything after that is not relevant to the offer and acceptance is unless of course there's a modification regardless whether it is a valid sentence or not you agree with me della when he tells us that if there's a deal made which is below the mandatory minimum we have to accept that and that mandatory minimum  is discarded right yes i really have to do is apply concepts of contract formation i maybe we haven't discussed since our balmy days law school about offer and acceptance and when the contract is me and what is the effect of subsequent declarations of the parties that may tend to modify the  do those declarations indeed modify under california law perhaps they do perhaps they don't know if there's a new consideration was there a waiver by mr buckley when he didn't stand up out what the contract was all we need to look at is the letter and the man signature is not right to some extent that's true your honor the letter says nothing about a term and right there are serious factual disputes concerning what was on the felony disposition form at the time that it was signed this record is fine and i don't see this that maybe your position is incorrectly found with the disc because put on after he signed that's a specific filing of this record the district court also finds that the notation of life is perhaps put on is most likely put on during the police hearing itself but there was no this beautiful that i mean there's that even mr buckley is willing to stay on probation for the rest of natural life so that's that's really a non issue but my point is this are you prepared to testify i mean you're perfect argue you for a thousand dollars and then afterwards you say i sold the car to judge bayard for fifteen hundred in my presence and i don't say anything and then you tell somebody else you sold it for two  maybe a question of weaver but does it affect contract was for that's my if this court if the question is whether or not a contract would be for issue was a raised in state court which has never been seen by the district court this report is making a ruling on the reasonableness of the factual determinations of the state court without knowing what the this report never had those documents never had one talk of this exhibit one through five you know it well i have not in not he did not have the petition with the exhibits attached it did indeed have those documents so i had one two three four five that's correct it did not have the fission it did not have the traverse it did not have the opposition the return power by the district attorney's office which included the timely declaration of the prosecutor spelling out that there was no at any point offer off the record regarding an offer of a determinant turn but it did have the letter of the prosecutor  one respondent puts forth a valid state judgments it is petitioners duty to demonstrate that the state judgment isn't reasonable based on the evidence presented in the state court hearing now if we were to go was in fact set then and reaffirmed i don't think that with any dispute as time went on and it is as it was stated procedure in the state court concluded differently judge parents conclusion is different from  record is before just parent there's only one time and therefore i find that that's not the case i wouldn't use judge karen frankly as the starting point i don't believe it's a look through or see through the situation for the reasons i cited in a nutshell says and now you say it's defective because we didn't give him some california law does not start with judge parents decision and appeal that california law says we could have brought this at any point under the original jurisdiction of each of the courts district court of appeal or the caliph that's not moving away because you got a finding of fact here from the superior court based on the full record submitted by your side and the finding of facts as we look at all of this kind of stuff and i find that petitioner well knew that he was looking at fifteen years to life and guess what i'm also taking judicial notice of his statement in his petition for writ of appeal where he identified his sentence as fifteen years to life please bargain now under under ed who don't we have to look at this in determine whether this was an unreasonable application somehow or of three questions you asked first the last question do you have to start if that's the point and think because california has a very unique law california law allows for regional jurisdiction every one of the other courts this court is to take a look at the final decision in the within the california state twenty to fifty four should be twe forty talks about result in a decision was based on unreasonable terminations of facts in the light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding and what i see is and is the evidence presented in the state court proceeding by your side finding that he knew it was fifteen to life and i  full evidentiary hearing at the trial court level witnesses all over the place six months declarations experts everything under the sun you loose court comes right comes out and says you lose i mean all these findings of fact against you and you can simply undercut  them going to the supreme court and adding a fact you didn't put in before you turned therefore this goes under edwards out the window because you added a fact later on that the way this game works it's not again it is if you can just add a reasoned decision within the california law requiring the petition went before a judge parent requesting the opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing on the california law when when someone puts in a petition and some support that with their declarations that's requesting it well they could have if they wanted to but he didn't grant the hearing that we asked for it could have been you could you must look to the formation the contract based on the record before a judge parent there's only one reasonable conclusion put his life at risk facing a different kind of death penalty the kind that can happen when you're in fifteen years in prison and we tell you that because you help the prosecutors and his testimony hearing that yes he was a young man twenty two years of age presented with this document without the knowledge that there's not a lot he has as an attorney about fifteen years to life he himself would have believed that it was a term of fifteen years was what the acceptance was and what the consideration ends and says that that means something else what about the judicial notice that he takes of the statement of the positions on hand that is within the life please of bargain isn't that an expression shortly after the the key issue in this case is the reasonableness of the state court even current county courts reasoned opinion and petitioner keeps focusing on dismissing evidence from prison in seven and a half years that expectation at that time was wholly consistent with an indeterminate term of fifteen years to life under california law which i've explained at length in both  and in the reply brief that document is meaningless and finding out what the petitioner thought about what his sentence was for scores of defendants had that same your i don't agree that a fifteen year offer was made but but but assuming that one was assuming that it was written on the form you know i would stay say that the agreement if there was an agreement then came moment actually actually that my time is up unless the court has for the question talking about the exact remedy in this case there being no other adequate remedy petitioners entitle to immediate release no later than the expiration of this fifteen year term although the court cannot determine the precise date it appears that petitioner sentence will expire in the very near future if it is not it has not already done so so how is it that the petition was released from prison  fifteen years so he served his sentence in that respect it was almost within give or take but i'm quite sure that he's already done that period of time and that the prosecutor testify in the federal  hearing that it's his opinion and that's enough that he's done his time in connection with what this crime was all about in service to the people you know i don't believe that that testimony was offered at the evidentiary hearing and nor do i think that it's relevant to th state approved process to put him back in prison frankly your honor of this court are i i am i can only speak for myself in this regard we disagree with the manner in which the district court reached a decision in this case this does not speak to two respondents opinion or the attorney general's opinion or the ventura county district attorney's opinion