Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08237/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08237-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kendrick Begay, 

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV-12-08237-PCT-DGC (MHB)

ORDER 

 Following a jury trial in June 2006, Defendant Kendrick Begay was found guilty 

of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of using, brandishing, or discharging 

a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Doc. 8 at 4. Defendant was sentenced to life 

imprisonment on the murder counts, followed by consecutive sentences of 120 months 

and 300 months for the firearm convictions. Id.

 Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence alleging that 

his trial counsel was ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Doc. 1. The 

Court referred the petition to United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns for a 

report and recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 5. Judge Burns recommended that the Court 

deny the motion because Defendant failed to satisfy the standard articulated in Strickland 

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), with respect to any of the claims raised in his 

motion. Doc. 8 at 14. 

 Defendant filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 11) and a Motion to Expand the 

Record (Doc. 12). The government has also filed a Motion to Expand the Record. 

Doc. 14. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Expand 

Case 3:12-cv-08237-DGC Document 15 Filed 11/05/13 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the Record, deny the government’s Motion to Expand the Record, and refer the case back 

to Magistrate Judge Burns to consider the expanded record. 

I. Standard of Review.

 Section 2555 requires the Court to grant a hearing “[u]nless the motion and the 

files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) (West 2013). If a motion under section 2255 is “based on alleged 

occurrences entirely outside the record, which if true would support relief, the court must 

conduct a hearing on those allegations ‘unless, viewing the petition against the record, its 

allegations do not state a claim for relief or are so patently frivolous or false as to warrant 

summary dismissal.’” Watts v. United States, 841 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting 

Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir.1982)). Courts may expand the 

record in considering section 2255 motions through discovery and documentary 

evidence. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 81-83 (1977); see also Rule 7 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Whether to hold a hearing or conduct discovery 

are matters committed to the Court’s discretion, Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 

487, 495 (1962), as long as the Court gives the claim “careful consideration and plenary 

processing, including full opportunity for presentation of the relevant facts,” Blackledge, 

431 U.S. at 82-83. 

II. Analysis. 

Defendant presents two documents for the Court’s consideration in his Motion to 

Expand the Record – an FBI report summarizing an interview of Defendant conducted on 

March 28, 2002, and a printout of pawn transactions from T & R Market, Inc. dated 

April 12, 2002. Although it is unclear why Defendant did not submit these documents 

with his original motion, Defendant did contend that “[h]ad trial counsel conducted 

adequate investigation he would have been able to present the jury with admissible 

evidence tending to suggest that [Defendant] did not physically possess a semi-automatic 

rifle firing the sort of ammunition believed to have been used in this case[.]” Doc. 2 at 

11. Judge Burns found that Defendant “offered no basis for this claim.” Doc. 8 at 13. 

Case 3:12-cv-08237-DGC Document 15 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The Court finds this new evidence relevant to the consideration of Defendant’s 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Under Rule 7(c) of the Rules Governing Section 

2255 Proceedings, the Court is required to “give the party against whom the additional 

materials are offered an opportunity to admit or deny their correctness.” Because the 

government has filed a reply to Defendant’s objection and its own motion seeking to 

expand the record, the Court finds the government has had such an opportunity. The 

government has not opposed Defendant’s motion to expand the record. The Court will 

therefore exercise its discretion and grant the motion. See Rule 7(a) of the Rules 

Governing 2255 Proceedings. 

 The Court will deny the government’s motion to expand the eecord as the 

documents submitted by the government as a part of its motion were also attached to its 

response to Defendant’s initial motion in this case. Accordingly, these documents are 

already part of the record. See Doc. 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3. 

 The Court will refer the case to Judge Burns for consideration of the expanded 

record. The Court will deny Defendant’s objections (Doc. 11) as moot. Defendant may 

file new objections after Judge Burns has updated her R&R in light of the expanded 

record. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to expand the record (Doc. 12) is 

granted and the case is referred to Judge Burns for further consideration. It is further 

ordered that the government’s motion to expand the record (Doc. 14) is denied. 

 Dated this 4th day of November, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-08237-DGC Document 15 Filed 11/05/13 Page 3 of 3