Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02387/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02387-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB MATTHEW SAYDYK,

Petitioner,

v.

MARION SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-2387 MCE CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Petitioner is state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a September 27, 2011 plea agreement 

and resulting sentence entered by the Shasta County Superior Court. 

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in case No. 10F2417 of one count of possession of 

methamphetamine with a prior strike. Immediately after the jury rendered its verdict, petitioner 

entered into a plea agreement which: (1) resolved his sentence in Case No. 10F2417; (2) resolved 

another case involving a 2010 DUI causing injury (Case No. 11F1359); and (3) dismissed four 

other cases. (Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal (CT) at 151-56, 159-63.) Under the terms of this 

agreement petitioner agreed to serve nine years in state prison on case No. 11F1359 and one year, 

four months in prison on case No. 10F2417. (Id.) 

Petitioner filed an unsuccessful appeal of his conviction for possession of 

methamphetamine. After his judgment of conviction was affirmed, petitioner filed a petition for 

Case 2:14-cv-02387-MCE-DB Document 21 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Resp’t’s Lod. Doc. 6.) Therein, he 

raised the following claims: (1) when he entered into the plea agreement he was under the 

influence of prescribed pain medication and was unable “to have knowingly entered intelligent 

plea;” (2) his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise a claim that his 

plea was involuntarily entered; and (3) his trial counsel’s absence at “critical stages” of his state 

court proceedings violated his right to due process. (Id.) That petition was summarily denied. 

(Resp’t’s Lod. Doc. 7.)

On August 28, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. As 

articulated in the petition, his claims are: (1) the California Supreme Court violated his right to 

due process when it denied his habeas petition without explaining the reasons for its decision; (2) 

the California Supreme Court violated his right to due process when it refused to grant his habeas 

petition; and (3) his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise a claim 

that his plea was involuntary because he was under the influence of pain medication at the time he 

entered the plea. Although petitioner’s first two claims for relief are phrased in the manner set 

forth above, in his attached “Memorandum of Points & Authorities” petitioner explains that all 

three of the claims he raised in his California Supreme Court habeas petition “are all again being 

raised for review federally hereat.” (ECF No. 1 at 12.) Throughout his arguments, petitioner 

refers to these claims and argues they should have been granted by the state courts. Petitioner has 

attached as an exhibit to his federal habeas petition a copy of the three habeas claims he raised 

before the California Supreme Court. (See ECF No. 1-2.) 

Although petitioner’s allegations are somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears from this 

court’s reading of the entire habeas petition that petitioner intended to raise in the instant petition 

all three of the claims he raised and exhausted in his California Supreme Court habeas petition. 

In his answer, however, respondent has addressed only the claims that are specifically articulated 

on the form petition, described above. Respondent has not addressed the merits of petitioner’s 

claims that his plea was involuntary and that his trial counsel’s absence at “critical stages” of his 

state court proceedings violated his right to due process. Good cause appearing, this court will 

order respondent to file a supplemental answer which addresses those two claims for relief.

Case 2:14-cv-02387-MCE-DB Document 21 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of this order respondent 

shall file a supplemental answer which addresses the merits of petitioner’s claims that his plea 

was involuntary because he was under the influence of pain medication at the time he entered the 

plea, and that his trial counsel’s absence at “critical stages” of his state court proceedings violated 

his right to due process. See ECF No. 1-2 at 12-31.

Dated: May 17, 2016

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02387-MCE-DB Document 21 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3