Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01150-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NYLES LAWAYNE WATSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1150 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM CAREY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He requests an evidentiary hearing.

For the reasons explained below, the court finds that petitioner has failed to demonstrate

the need for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner makes the following claims: (1) the prosecution breached the terms of the plea

agreement resulting in a 1989 conviction by relying upon it to seek an enhanced sentence in this

case; (2) using the 1989 conviction violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the Eighth Amendment;

(3) use of his 1989 burglary conviction to increase his current sentence violates the Double

Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (4) the prosecutor violated the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to disclose a letter from an official at the California

Medical Facility showing petitioner had been “discharged from the Department of Corrections 

Civil Addict Commitment.”

Case 2:03-cv-01150-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 11/15/06 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

A federal court will grant an evidentiary hearing in a section 2254 proceeding if the

petitioner (1) alleges facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief; and, (2) demonstrates

that he did not receive a full and fair hearing in state court, either at the time of the trial or in a

collateral proceeding. Karis v. Calderon, 283 F.3d 1117, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Some of the facts petitioner alleges are true, i.e., that he entered into a plea agreement

resulting in a 1989 burglary conviction, for which the trial court sentenced him to two years in

prison but permitted him to participate in a civil drug diversion program. It is not clear whether

the prosecution suppressed the letter to which petitioner refers. Nevertheless, for the reasons

explained in the findings and recommendations issued concurrently, the court finds that

assuming all the facts petitioner alleges are true, he is not entitled to relief as a matter of law. 

Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s December 2, 2003, motion for an

evidentiary hearing is denied.

Dated: November 15, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01150-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2