Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00403/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00403-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE SILVA,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-0403 RRB KJM P 

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently serving a term of seventeen-yearsto-life imprisonment following his 1989 San Joaquin County conviction for second degree

murder. Answer, Ex. A at 4, 14:20-24. Petitioner challenges the fact that he was denied parole

on May 14, 2004. Three matters are before the court.

1. Petitioner’s Motion To Expand The Record

Petitioner asks that the court expand the record to include several documents

submitted to the court by petitioner on June 26, 2006. Respondents have not opposed

petitioner’s request. Therefore, petitioner’s request will be granted.

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00403-JAM -KJM Document 41 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 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

2

2. Petitioner’s Motion For Leave To Conduct Discovery

Petitioner asks permission to conduct discovery in an effort to gather evidence in

support of his assertion that the sentence for which he bargained was seventeen years’

imprisonment minus any good conduct sentence credit, not an indeterminate term of seventeenyears-to-life. However, as the court explained in its March 10, 2008 findings and

recommendations, this claim is time-barred. Therefore, petitioner’s request to conduct discovery

will be denied.

3. Petitioner’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing regarding whether he was promised a

determinate sentence rather that an indeterminate one. Again, this claim is time-barred so there

is no need to consider holding an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner also asks that the court hold an

evidentiary hearing to resolve certain questions of law. Mot. at 2:9-16. Evidentiary hearings are

held to assist the court in deciding disputed facts. The court does not take evidence to decide

questions of law; rather, it looks to the law itself and construes and applies it as appropriate. For

these reasons, petitioner’s request that the court hold an evidentiary hearing will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to expand the record (#33) is granted. The record is

expanded to include the exhibits filed by petitioner on June 26, 2006.

2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (#34) is denied. 

3. Petitioner’s request that the court hold an evidentiary hearing (#36) is denied.

DATED: March 26, 2008

 nunc pro tunc

 to March 10, 2008.

1

silv0403.abs

Case 2:05-cv-00403-JAM -KJM Document 41 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2