Derek Sylvester v. Scott Rawers, et al, No. 08-15781 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEREK SYLVESTER, No. 08-15781 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-CV-01301-GEB v. MEMORANDUM * SCOTT P. RAWERS, Warden, Avenal State Prison; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Derek Sylvester appeals from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sylvester contends the district court abused its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim. After de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the record reveals Sylvester was not diligent in developing the evidence in his state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Sylvester argues that the State has breached his plea agreement by capping his custody credit eligibility at 15%. The state court s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261-62 (1971), nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). AFFIRMED. 2 08-15781

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.