Whether the state court abused its discretion in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing, violating the petitioner's due process rights to review new evidence regarding an illegal extradition, arrest, and conviction

No question identified. : yi . woe C biet Questions +0 Decide _o @O@— COA when Ba gues merely hed to CMV Fuvichs of feason Could Dicagnoe trith the dish Cout pesalukion aud euvence Once Upuilied O pease ned Fuck could conclude re tc(uec Prevented are adequate $a deceoue euconagmont ty ProD) Did Une WS dick Court abuse EE diccwehon yrefusing ta cod: chuck an Ebideutia vg Heanng Uiplaked. Hagwes bue Process +0 , Leview News evidence fegavding Yoo illegal exteadi Mon, devest— : and in Levencer to Guilt gud Tusudvdidn on the mevitc, the Dick CA. tefeyeacing Ousy “£ gow hee valeble pecoved ‘ (Apex 4 Rae Pi. 26 $4, nh, (25)) yhatonce Ver lige {rus echabiiches a , ba. cic toy vellet, C2254 Celle) Cre ference APEX. &, Atsich. 1 40x Puy toi2i)' CEary yornoski OL F.24, lige a7 (eHar. . 200. Ish CYoten vmenkle (327 F.3A 172 26 Cth cre. 78) 3)did the Shale Courts Aeouial of Naynec claims toa faiy “au. nh _$ pecad 4 Toial a Liver a 20 year Aclay and we Conduct, ing on Ras hey V Winge in gutey into Achual | Presumed Pretudice, ] -Q2 (uther Pehe Raynes rf os " ’ 2 US SIN, 42 SCH. 2192 92 Lod. 2h toi)! Chlop ter v narth Caroling Bob us 213 iP LEA ot, LL eT. SCh gs), Coeds Closing Cate FIS-0524 1a 2003 Fizges. be fore Nayner teie[) Closing Case F9S-0524 tn 2003 Fizges. be fore Naguer teal) Nececcavily Peluitin gou. neglect aad the Total Leck ot Due o (Ge Doggett vuc (1epz)eupea)s , | “4 | “oS Ouesrions | , Os Qe om Ud cee tan n yota Conviction, weve guery veriewing 0 $FiCee of multiple Counts allagree, there Lo no tnappropaete on Cmaal achutty aM Noting untoward ! acto fre A leg ed _micdemeanoy Conduct eVoy wsoutd tre FUPD have bettvoy ed g Ll the evidence, Ruwgect the Ellec aud Cloced a Felony case, 1 there Was "“Bad''phots, AS Mt io jnare Tb to walect evence do Convict, Clearly in Gere thee icae buch Conduct as cWayged , Le then im plauce ble and the Very Aetinition ofan _ackual tunocence Claim (Lee Appr, pica 4 . get 0-240 &) Ui) To fully Dadeess issues brought to te Nowrable Couwt of Last — Pesorks Naywes Sees yomand back to the lover Courts as Prouid~ C404 cal tere 428) and Mpa. Counsel [due to the Uwus Haque has No Naess fo law Itbpavy Cove lewi's V cavey (1976) LiBus 3443 y\ +o | Verity Thedetition andsrgand the tecovl they av Evid. Weaving ate | : Mu Puience awa Lacke tu lg Peetented tedating hack 4) [¢(uec Previousiy Csee PppyB, Atich3, gv. , Pp L7121)5 (coe Appy, 1 cevitw ewied.) ihutherPere Hewues : @ I am the petitioner in this action. I have read the foregoing petition for writ of habeas corpus and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to mattérs that are therein stated on my own information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be. true. : ‘ I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Nut declaration was executed at&t y ¢ © al 2| al 28] 2 ) Deherte Liber S| 26 { a. Petitioner Hu-ble 3 CDCR Number : In re: Luther Pete Haynes . AW 6163 , ' C-1-Alpine, 207u P.O.Box 500, C.1LM_ | Chino, Ca. 91708 , i % Qa —nee . tt Ee