Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01067-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY MAXXIZZINE JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1067 GEB GGH P

vs.

GLORIA HENRY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the Three Strikes Law, petitioner is

serving a sentence of 25 years to life for her 1996 conviction for assault with force likely to

produce great bodily injury.

Pending before the court is petitioner’s January 18, 2008, motion to compel. On

March 27, 2008, a hearing was held regarding this motion. Stephanie Adraktas appeared on

behalf of petitioner. Deputy District Attorney Charles Gonzales appeared to oppose the motion. 

After reviewing the record, the court orders that petitioner’s motion is granted in part.

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 79 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 The court remains to be educated on the seeming inconsistency between pleading to a 1

misdemeanor and also admitting strikes. Since Cal. Penal Code § 667 does not apply its

provisions to misdemeanor convictions, see People v. Vessell, 36 Cal. App. 4th 285, 42 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 241 (1995), what would be the point of admitting the strikes? More to the point, what

would be the purposes of fashioning such a plea agreement? However, respondent did not

oppose the discovery motion on these legal grounds, and the court will not assess their ultimate

significance here. 

2

Background

This action is proceeding on the amended petition filed January 27, 2006. The

petition raises the following claims relevant to the pending motion. In claim one, petitioner

alleges that her counsel was ineffective in that he incorrectly advised her of the terms of her plea

agreement. Petitioner claims that counsel advised her she could enter the following plea

agreement with the state: petitioner would plea guilty to a assault, a “wobbler” offense, and admit

two prior serious “strike” convictions. In exchange, the prosecutor would dismiss the remaining

counts. Petitioner claims that counsel told her that the “wobbler” charge would be sentenced as a

misdemeanor or she would be allowed to withdraw her plea.

1

Petitioner was sentenced by a different judge than the judge who accepted her

plea. The sentencing judge denied the defense motion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor

and sentenced her to 25 years to life. Petitioner’s counsel did not move to withdraw the plea. 

In claim three, petitioner alleges that her counsel was ineffective for failing to

adequately investigate or negotiate her case. Petitioner argues that had counsel conducted

adequate investigation, he would have discovered that the prosecution had a weak case and

advised petitioner not to waive her right to a jury trial. 

On September 9, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to discover all notes and files

from the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office concerning the nature of the plea bargain

offered to petitioner and all documents regarding these proceedings that were provided to her

trial counsel by the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. Following a hearing, on

November 14, 2007, the court filed an order granting petitioner’s motion for discovery. In this

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 79 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

order, the court found good cause to grant petitioner’s discovery request. See Rule 6, Federal

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Motion to Compel

In the pending motion, petitioner states that she served a subpoena duces tecum on

the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office for production of the complete District

Attorney case file for petitioner’s case. On December 10, 2007, the Sacramento District

Attorney’s Office provided petitioner’s counsel with those records and a list of documents

withheld on grounds of work product privilege. The pending motion seeks to compel production

of the withheld documents.

On March 17, 2008, the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office filed an opposition

to petitioner’s motion to compel. On March 18, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to strike the

opposition as untimely. While the opposition is untimely, the reasons for the untimeliness of the

opposition were explained (off the record) at the March 28, 2008, hearing. In addition,

petitioner’s counsel was given adequate opportunity to discuss the merits of her reply to the

opposition at the hearing. For these reasons, the motion to strike is denied. 

The opposition argues that good cause does not exist to allow petitioner to

discover the District Attorney’s file regarding her case. This court’s previous finding of good

cause is law of the case. See Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th

Cir. 1981)(the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is

substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly

erroneous and would result in injustice.” ). The court will not revisit this matter.

The District Attorney’s Office also objects that the at-issue documents are

protected by the work product doctrine. The work product doctrine protects documents and

tangible things that have been prepared by or for a party or his representative in anticipation of

litigation or for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). As codified in rule 26(b)(3), the work product

doctrine protects against the disclosure of documents and tangible things “prepared in

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 79 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s

representative...” Work product includes “the so-called ‘qualified work product’ (facts derived

from an attorney’s investigation) and the ‘absolute’ version (the attorney’s mental thought

processes).” Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601, 606, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1993). The party asserting

the work-product rule has the burden of establishing, for each document, the rule’s application. 

Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 652 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The protection of the rule is not absolute. 

When mental impressions are at issue and the need for material protected by the work product

rule is compelling, work product may be discovered. Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992).

As discussed at the hearing, petitioner is entitled to discovery regarding her claim

that counsel misadvised her regarding the terms of her plea agreement. While petitioner raises a

separate claim that counsel failed to adequately investigate her case, her allegations of pre-plea

defects are waived. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602 (1973); United

States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992)(per curiam)(holding that defendants’ pre-plea

ineffective assistance of counsel issue was waived). Because petitioner pled no contest, she may

only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of her plea. Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267, 93 S.Ct.

1602. 

At the hearing, petitioner’s counsel suggested that the rules set forth in Tollett,

supra, and Bohn, supra, apply only to guilty pleas, i.e. claims alleging pre-plea defects are not

waived by no contest pleas. This court is aware of no case law supporting this proposition. Such

a rule would make no sense as it would place those defendants who pled no contest in a much

better position to challenge pre-plea defects for no apparent reason. Accordingly, the court will

not allow petitioner to conduct discovery as to her ineffective assistance of counsel claim

alleging counsel’s ineffectiveness for not adequately investigating her case. Petitioner may only

conduct discovery as to her claim that counsel failed to adequately advise her of the terms of her

plea agreement.

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 79 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

At the March 27, 2008, hearing, Deputy District Attorney Gonzeles described in

more detail the 30 documents identified in the privilege log. Following this description,

petitioner’s counsel identified 18 documents that she seeks to compel: nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30. After reviewing these documents, the court has

determined that petitioner’s need for the following documents is compelling: 1, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17,

19, 23, and 24. The Sacramento County District Attorneys Office is ordered to make copies of

these documents and provide them to petitioner’s counsel. As discussed at the hearing, these

documents are subject to a protective order in that they may be reviewed by petitioner’s counsel

only and used only in the course of this litigation.

The court has determined that the remaining documents (nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

25, 28, 29 and 30) are not particularly relevant to petitioner’s claim. Document 11 consists of 

handwritten notes regarding a witness containing no information regarding the decision by the

District Attorney’s Office to charge petitioner with a misdemeanor or felony, or concerning other

terms of the plea bargain. Documents 12-15 and 25, 29-30 are computer generated printouts

containing information regarding witnesses that is not relevant to the at-issue claim. Document

28 is an inmate movement history for Renee Vasquez which is also not relevant to the at-issue

claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 18, 2008, motion to strike is denied;

2. Petitioner’s January 18, 2007, motion to compel is granted as to documents

1, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 24, and denied in all other respects;

3. Within twenty days of the date of this order, the Sacramento County District

Attorney’s Office shall copy documents 1, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 23 and 24 and provide copies to

petitioner’s counsel; these documents are subject to a protective order in that they may be

reviewed by petitioner’s counsel only and used only in the course of this litigation;

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 79 Filed 04/15/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Deputy District

Attorney Charles Gonzalez, District Attorney’s Office, Sacramento County, 901 G Street,

Sacramento, California, 95814; Deputy District Attorney Gonzales shall make arrangements to

have the documents picked up from the undersigned’s chambers as soon as possible;

5. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date of this order to make a motion for

an evidentiary hearing regarding these documents; if no motion is made following this time, the

petition will be deemed submitted for decision. 

DATED: 04/15/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jones.com

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 79 Filed 04/15/08 Page 6 of 6