Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00790/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00790-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vincent Mertes
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

VINCENT MERTES,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00790-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY

Re: Dkt. No. 46

The father of defendant Vincent Mertes has contacted the Court asking for appointment of 

an attorney to look into whether California’s Proposition 47 might provide defendant any relief. 

Docket No. 46. 

In August 2009, defendant entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Docket No. 32. Under this agreement, defendant waived his 

right to file any collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence. Id. at 5. Further, it is not apparent 

that defendant is eligible for relief under Proposition 47 due to a history of sex offense; or that, if 

he is, it would have any effect on his federal sentence. See Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18(i); Bogan v. 

United States, No. 91-cr-551-SI, 2016 WL 948742, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016). If 

defendant still wishes to pursue this further, he should contact the Public Defender’s Office in El 

Dorado County regarding his Proposition 47 eligibility.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the request for appointment of an attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00790-SI Document 47 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 1