Back to Exhibit 6

CONCLUSION

The fact that this court may find some of the petitioner’s allegations made in his Habeas Corpus petition to be “improbable and unbelievable, cannot serve to deny the petitioner an opportunity to support them by evidence”. Machibroda V. United States, 368 U.S.487, 495, 82 s.ct.510, 514 (1962). Thus the petitioner requests the court to order petitioner’s guilty pleas withdrawn and the convictions on those cases vacated based on the reasons and evidence enumerated herein, and within the petitioner’s Habeas petition, as petitioner has sufficiently proven his various allegations justifying vacation of those said cases. And if the court is NOT satisfied with the evidence thus far submitted in support of the petitioner’s said allegations, in any respect, the petitioner would then ask this court to order this Habeas Corpus petition matter to be set for an evidentiary hearing so that the petitioner can call witnesses in to give evidentiary testimony in support of the petitioner’s various allegations (i.e., coercion, ineffective counsel, unintelligently made guilty pleas, speedy trial violations, I.A.D. violations, Ex-Post Facto law violations, etc.)

The petitioner could also subpoena and gather additional documented evidence as well if an evidentiary hearing in this matter is granted. The California Supreme Court has recognized a petitioner’s right to be afforded an evidentiary hearing on a Habeas Corpus petition, when the court has determined that there is not enough evidence in the filed pleadings to grant or deny a Habeas Corpus petition on the record before it. See In re.Alvernaz, supra, 2Cal. 4^th 924,948 (1992) (“when, after all the pleadings are filed, there remain factual questions relating to matters outside the trial record that are both disputed and material – i.e., whose resolution is necessary to the decision whether to grant relief – it is our practice to ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING on such questions”.) (Dissenting opinion), citing In re. Marquez (1992), 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 727, 822 p.2d 435;  In re. Cordero (1988) 46 Cal.3d. 161, 756 P.2d 1370;  In re. Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 744 P.2d  374;  People V. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 171, 729 P.2d 839;  In re.Hall (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 408, 637 P.2d 690.

WHEREFORE the reasons stated above the petitioner requests the following relief:

1. That petitioner’s plea and conviction on case no. FVA-06241 be vacated and that the said case dismissed with prejudice for violating petitioner’s said 180 day right under the I.A.D. to a speedy trial.
2. That petitioner’s plea and conviction on case no. FVA-06241 (in relation to the I.D.A. motion to dismiss incompetence) and case no. FVA-10530 (in relation to the Ex-Post Facto law application related incompetence) be vacated and remained for trial on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. That the petitioner’s pleas on cases FVA-06241 and FVA-10530 be vacated and remanded on grounds of coercion (in relation to both petitioner’s starvation and confinement in the jail, AND the Ex-Post Facto threats).
4. That petitioner’s guilty pleas on cases FVA-06241 and FVA-10530 be vacated as being unintelligently made.
5. That petitioner’s guilty pleas and convictions be vacated on grounds of Ex-Post Facto law applications.
6. That petitioner be granted his said 135 days credit to his sentence on FVA-06241.
7. That the court set an evidentiary hearing if it finds insufficient evidence to grant any of the relief above.

Respectfully submitted,

JUSTIN RUEB
Petitioner/Defendant in Pro-per
R.N. # 94567
Unit – A3, 27
P.O.Box – 777
Canon City, Co. 81215

DATED THIS 5^TH DAY OF MAY, 2002