Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06370/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06370-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Quiroz
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

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

1Petitioner also contends that the court increased his

sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington. However, the court

has denied this claim by Order filed on October 7, 2004.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL MONTEJANO QUIROZ, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6370 REC

(No. CR-F-99-5060 REC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255 AND DIRECTING

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT 

On October 5, 2004, petitioner Rafael Quiroz timely filed a

MOTION to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, contending that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel at the plea negotiation/plea offer stage.1

The court ordered petitioner to file a waiver of the

attorney-client privilege in connection with the claims made in

this MOTION. The court also ordered the United States to respond

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 24
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

2

to petitioner's claim, giving petitioner 30 days thereafter to

file a reply brief. The United States' opposition was filed on

January 27, 2005. Petitioner has not filed a reply. 

Consequently, all briefing now being complete, the court issues

its rulings as set forth herein.

The standards governing an assertion of ineffective

assistance of counsel are set forth in Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984). As explained in United States v. QuinteroBarraza, 78 F.2d 1344, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519

U.S. 848 (1996):

According to Strickland, there are two

components to an effectiveness inquiry, and

the petitioner bears the burden of

establishing both ... First, the

representation must fall ‘below an objective

standard of reasonableness.’ ... Courts

scrutinizing the reasonableness of an

attorney’s conduct must examine counsel’s

‘overall performance,’ both before and at

trial, and must be highly deferential to the

attorney’s judgments ... In fact, there

exists a ‘strong presumption that counsel

“rendered adequate assistance and made all

significant decisions in the exercise of

reasonable professional judgment.”’ ... In

short, defendant must surmount the

presumption that, ‘under the circumstances,

the challenged action “might be considered

sound trial strategy.”’ ... Thus, the proper

inquiry is ‘whether, in light of all the

circumstances, the identified acts or

omissions were outside the wide range of

professionally competent assistance.’ ....

If the petitioner satisfies the first prong,

he must then establish that there is ‘a

reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result

would have been different ....

In support of this MOTION, petitioner avers in his

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 24
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

declaration in pertinent part as follows:

3. On March 1, 1999, I was arrested and

charged ... with conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine. There were 4 others also

charged in this same indictment.

...

5. After my arrest in March 1999, my family

retained a lawyer, Hector Padilla, to

represent me. Mr. Padilla is bilingual in

English and Spanish.

6. Early in the case Mr. Padilla told me

that he was not very familiar with federal

law so he was going to associate in another

lawyer, Mr. Richard Bitters, who is an

experienced federal practitioner. Mr.

Bitters does not speak any Spanish. Mr.

Bitters only came to see me about three

times, each time Mr. Padilla interpreted the

conversation for each of us.

7. Throughout the entire time my case was

pending, it was my understanding that both

Mr. Padilla and Mr. Bitters were my

attorneys. However, after I was sentenced, I

first learned that Mr. Bitters was actually

my attorney of record and that Mr. Padilla

never officially entered an appearance as

counsel on my behalf.

8. Sometime in late November, 1999, I hired

another lawyer, Mr. William Romaine, to

represent me in a civil dispute that I was

having with the California Lottery

Commission. In 1989 I won 1 million dollars

in the Big Spin and after my arrest, the

California Lottery Commission tried to

withhold my money. Mr. Romaine represented

me and was successful in getting my 1999

winnings released to one of my family

members. Needless to say, I was very pleased

with Mr. Romaine's work.

9. In early February 2000, although I was

aware that Mr. Romaine practices mostly in

civil court, I asked him if he would talk to

Mr. Padilla and Mr. Bitters to make sure that

they were preparing my case, reading the

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 24
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

discovery, and were doing everything they

could in my case to help me. I had already

spent 1 year in the county jail. During that

one year, many people gave me advice as to

what I should do and what I could expect to

happen to me. It was impossible to know who

and what to believe. I asked Mr. Romaine to

help me because I did not know who else to

ask or who to trust. I was basically

unfamiliar with the criminal justice system

here in America. I was overwhelmed with the

charges against me and the potential that I

could be sentenced to a life in prison.

10. Mr. Romaine told me that he met with Mr.

Padilla and Mr. Bitters. I recall that Mr.

Romaine told me that he believed there was a

huge amount of trial preparation that had not

been done, and that he would act as my local

counsel and help Mr. Padilla and Mr. Bitters

in any way that he could.

11. During the entire time that Mr. Bitters

represented me, I do not recall that he ever

explained to me exactly what I was charged

with, what evidence the government intended

to use against me to try and prove the

charges, or the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines. I do recall that spoke [sic]

with Mr. Padilla in general terms about the

case, and that he showed me some of the

government reports. All of the reports and

evidence were in English and I was unable to

read or review them on my own. I do not

recall any of my lawyers discussing the

specific evidence that the government planned

to use or how the information in the document

related to the specific charges against me.

12. I recall that the week before trial

started I learned that two of my codefendants had entered into plea agreements

with the government. On the day before

trial, these two co-defendants and two others

changed their pleas to guilty.

13. I recall that about a week before trial,

Mr. Romaine told me he spoke with the United

States Attorney and that she had mentioned a

plea deal for me of 20 years in prison and

give up all of the Lottery winnings that I

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 4 of 24
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

still was owed. Mr. Romaine did not seem to

think that the government's offer to me was a

serious one, so we did not spend much time

discussing the possibility.

14. During the week before trial, it was

decided that Mr. Romaine would be the trial

attorney. It was my understanding that Mr.

Bitters would continued to work on the case

and help Mr. Romaine during the trial. Mr.

Romaine assured me that he was prepared for

trial even though he did not know until a few

days before the trial started that he would

be the trial attorney.

15. At the end of the eighth day of trial,

the jury returned guilty verdicts on 10 out

of the 22 counts I was charged in. Codefendant Chavez was also found guilty.

16. I was sentenced on July 2, 2001 to a

term of Life.

...

18. During the time that the appeal was

being prepared, I was given all of my records

from my attorneys. In these records I found

a letter dated August 24, 2000 addressed to

both Mr. Bitters and Mr. Romaine from the

government offering to settle my case. I

understand that the terms of the offer were

that the government would recommend a 20 year

sentence and I would forfeit any monies owed

to me from the Lottery. I now also

understand that the government specifically

stated that they could not promise that the

court would accept the terms of the agreement

but that they would recommend a twenty year

sentence.

19. Had I known about the specific terms of

the plea offer, and been advised of the law,

evidence, and possible consequences of

rejecting the offer, I would have accepted

the offer rather than insisting on going to

trial.

20. One of the charges that I was convicted

of is a Continuing Criminal Enterprise. I

now understand that one of the elements the

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 5 of 24
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

government had to prove was that I was the

leader, manager, or director of 5 or more

persons. If I had been informed and had

understood what that government had to prove

to convict me, I would have definitely

accepted the plea offer once I learned that 4

of my co-defendants had entered guilty pleas.

21. Although I testified at trial and

insisted in [sic] my innocence, I still would

have entered into a plea agreement had I

known of the governments [sic] offer and been

effectively advised by my attorney that if I

was convicted at trial I would be sentenced

to life.

Also submitted in support of petitioner’s MOTION is the

declaration of William Romaine, wherein he avers in pertinent

part:

3. In late 1999, I was retained by Rafael

Quiroz to represent him on issues arises

[sic] out of his receipt of Lottery winnings

from the State of California. At that time,

Mr. Quiroz was in custody at the Fresno

County Jail pending trial in United States

District Court, Case No. CR-F-99-5060 REC.

4. I was not fluent in Spanish. Mr. Quiroz

does not speak English. I was accompanied by

a Spanish speaking interpreter at all of my

meetings with Mr. Quiroz. Based on my

conversations with Mr. Quiroz, I do not

believe he has more than 5 years of formal

education in Mexico. Mr. Quiroz is not very

sophisticated and was totally unfamiliar with

the American Criminal Justice System.

5. During one of my meetings with Mr.

Quiroz, he told me that the attorney fo

record in his criminal action was Hector

Gonzalez Padilla. He further told me that

Mr. Padilla was primarily a state court

practitioner and associated with another

lawyer, Richard Bitters, who was familiar

with federal law and procedure.

6. I recall that at the time Mr. Quiroz told

me that Mr. Padilla would occasionally visit

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 6 of 24
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

7

him to discuss the case. However, Mr. Quiroz

told me that Mr. Bitters only met with Mr.

Quiroz a few times during the more than 16

months that he represented Mr. Quiroz.

7. I recall that in early February 2000, Mr.

Quiroz asked me to speak with Mr. Padilla to

assess the progress of the case and to insure

that he (Padilla) was aggressively working on

the case.

8. On February 14, 2000, I sent a letter to

Mr. Padilla requesting that we meet to

discuss Mr. Quiroz’s case.

9. In late February, I met with Mr. Padilla. 

I recall that Mr. Padilla was generally

familiar with Mr. Quiroz’s case, however I

opined that there was an enormous amount fo

trial preparation, analysis of the evidence,

investigation, and legal research that had

not been done. At the conclusion of this

meeting, Mr. Padilla asked me if I would act

as local counsel on the case. It was my

understanding that Mr. Padilla would continue

to act as lead counsel with respect to all

matters, including trial preparation and

discussions with the government attorney. I

also understood that Mr. Bitters would

continue to appear in court, and that I would

only assist if there was a specific discreet

task that I could execute as local counsel.

10. After discussing it with Mr. Quiroz, and

relating my understanding as to each

attorney’s role, I agreed to enter a general

appearance in Mr. Quiroz’ federal criminal

case. On February 28, 2000, I filed a Notice

of Appearance ... with the Court Clerk ....

11. Jury trial in Mr. Quiroz’ case was

scheduled to commence on August 29, 2000.

12. As the trial date grew closer, I became

more concerned with Mr. Padilla and Mr.

Bitters [sic] lack of trial preparation. As

the trial date approached, I was asked to do

more and more to assist with the necessary

preparation. I recall that sometime during

the week of August 21, it was decided that I

would be the trial attorney, with the

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 7 of 24
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

8

understanding the [sic] Mr. Padilla and Mr.

Bitters would be in attendance to assist me.

13. During the week before trial, I was

aware that Mr. Bitters was having

conversations or had at least one

conversation with the AUSA on Mr. Quiroz’

behalf but I can only remember generally

being told that Mr. Bitters had discussed

possible plea agreements with the government

attorney. I cannot recall ever being told

that a time-limited, specific plea offer had

been made to Mr. Quiroz. During the final

week before trial, my role was very focused

on preparation for trial and I would not have

expected to be involved in such discussions

if they were, indeed, going on.

14. At the time trial commenced or during

the week before, I recall having one

conversation with the AUSA as to the

possibility of resolving the case through a

negotiated disposition. The AUSA did not

appear to be serious about resolving the

charges against Mr. Quiroz. I recall that I

told Mr. Quiroz about my conversation with

the AUSA and what I perceived to be her halfhearted offer to negociate.

15. I do not recall ever seeing or being

aware of a formal plea offer or of a written

plea agreement tendered by the government. I

do not recall ever discussing the specific

terms of any plea offer with Mr. Quiroz, nor

participating in such a discussion.

16. Sometime within the past year, I have

been made aware that there is an August 24,

2000 letter addressed to Mr. Bitters and to

myself that memorializes plea discussions

that occurred between Mr. Bitters and AUSA

Servatius. Although the letter has Mr.

Bitters name and mailing address, it only

contains my name with mo mailing address. 

The August 24, 2000 letter expressly states

that the plea offer is only open for 24

hours. Since I was unaware of the existence

of this written offer, I did not discuss it

with my client, Mr. Quiroz. I did

understand, however, that Mr. Bitters was

going to discuss plea bargains generally with

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 8 of 24
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

9

Mr. Quiroz and I understood that he had done

so outside of my presence. I did not know,

however, what plea bargaining issues Mr.

Bitters discussed with Mr. Quiroz nor was I

ever Present [sic] when Mr. Bitters discussed

any plea bargains offered by the AUSA.

17. On August 25, two of Mr. Quiroz’ codefendants changed their pleas and entered

into signed plea agreements with the

government. On August 28, two more codefendants changed their pleas and entered

into signed plea agreements with the

government. Of the remaining two codefendants, Raul Chavez went to trial with

defendant and Felipe Alvarez was arrested

just prior to the August 29 trial date. Mr.

Alvarez eventually did accept a plea offer by

the government.

18. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the

jury returned guilty verdicts on the

Continuing Criminal Enterprise, Conspiracy to

Manufacture Methamphetamine, and 8

substantive Manufacturing counts. The jury

also found that an asset forfeiture was

proper in the amount of $4,300,000 ... The

jury acquitted Mr. Quiroz of 12 substantive

manufacturing counts.

19. Had I known that the government had made

a serious plea offer, I would have taken the

time to insure that Mr. Quiroz understood the

specifics of the agreement, the evidence

against him, the law, and the sentencing

consequences of entering a plea versus

proceeding to trial.

20. If I was aware at that time that counsel

had not fully explained the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines to Mr. Quiroz, I would

have taken the time to explain the applicable

law to Mr. Quiroz so that he could make an

informed, intelligent choice as to whether or

not he should proceed to trial.

Submitted as an exhibit to petitioner’s MOTION is a copy of a

letter dated August 24, 2000 from AUSA Servatius addressed to Mr.

Bitters at his office in Pasadena and to Mr. Romaine with no

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 9 of 24
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

10

address listed. There is no indication on the exhibit whether

this letter was mailed or faxed to counsel. The letter states in

pertinent part:

I have previously discussed with Mr. Bitters

a proposed resolution of this matter. As I

indicated, should the defendant be convicted

at trial, he will face a mandatory 240-year

term for the continuing criminal enterprise,

and a guideline range of 360 years to life

[sic]. Conviction of the conspiracy to

manufacture brings a much higher sentence

(life) because of the firearms used at the

laboratory sites and the hazardous waste

released into the environment. I have agreed

to permit Mr. Quiroz to plead to the

conspiracy charge with an agreement by the

government not to recommend a leadership

enhancement or firearm enhancement. I have

explained that I cannot guarantee that

probation and the Court will follow this

recommendation, but that if they did, the

defendant would face a base offense level of

37 and a guideline range of 210 to 262

months.

Enclosed please find the proposed agreement

for resolution of this matter as to your

client. The Court has left instructions that

such pleas must be entered on Monday, August

28, 2000, and that the plea agreements must

be filed with the Court no later than Friday,

August 25, 2000. Please execute the

agreement if they [sic] meet with your

satisfaction, and return to me early

afternoon on Friday. I will execute them

[sic] on behalf of this office and then file

them [sic] with the Court. I will have filestamped copies available for you at the

hearing on Monday.

Should you need to discuss the terms of the

plea agreement, please do so as soon as

possible. ....

Submitted with the Government’s opposition to petitioner’s

MOTION is the Declaration of Hector Gonzalez Padilla. Mr.

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 10 of 24
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

11

Padilla avers in pertinent part:

2. In early March 1999, I was contacted by

family members of Rafael Quiroz. I was

informed that Mr. Quiroz had been arrested

and the family wanted to retain an attorney. 

I went the Fresno County Jail and met with

Mr. Quiroz. After ascertaining information

that Mr. Quiroz was being charged with

Federal offenses, I advised him that I didn’t

have Federal experience and I could only

refer him to an attorney with Federal

experience ... I introduced attorney Richard

H. Bitters to Mr. Quiroz and Mr. Quiroz was

satisfied. However, Mr. Quiroz insisted that

I assist Mr. Bitters in his representation. 

Mr. Bitters became attorney of record March

22, 1999.

3. Mr. Quiroz was in custody pending federal

trial. I visited him at least once a week as

I am fluent in both English and Spanish. At

least twice a month, Mr. Bitters accompanied

me when I visited Mr. Quiroz. Both myself

and Mr. Bitters reviewed discovery with Mr.

Quiroz. I translated it to him. During such

conversations, either myself or Mr. Bitters

would discuss the case with Mr. Quiroz,

including the nature of the charges, possible

defenses, trial strategies, and the sentence

to which Mr. Quiroz would be exposed if

convicted. Mr. Quiroz denied that he

committed the crimes charged against him. In

particular, Mr. Quiroz claimed that the

government had confused him with his brother,

Robert, and that Roberto [sic] was

responsible for these crimes. Information in

discovery indicated that on one occasion

Roberto used Mr. Quiroz’s identification when

identifying himself after winning at a

casino. This was just one such defense which

we discussed with Mr. Quiroz.

In early February 2000, I received a

telephone call from William Romaine, advising

me that he was representing Mr. Quiroz in a

separate matter involving Lotto money that

Mr. Quiroz had won but was not receiving. 

Mr. Romaine also advised that Mr. Quiroz

wanted him to participate in the defense of

his case. I advised Mr. Romaine that I would

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 11 of 24
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

12

confirm this information with Mr. Quiroz and

then discuss the case with him.

5. [sic] After meeting with Mr. Quiroz, Mr.

Quiroz advised me that he wanted Mr. Romaine

to handle the federal case because he had

been successful in recovering the Lotto money

and because Mr. Romaine had told Mr. Quiroz

that he had a ‘good chance of beating the

charges.’ I told Mr. Quiroz that II [sic]

disagreed with Mr. Romaine’s assessment of

the case since he had not yet seen the

evidence against Mr. Quiroz. Mr. Quiroz in

no uncertain terms told myself and Mr.

Bitters that he wanted Mr. Romaine to take

responsibility for the case. I believe that

in late February 2000, Mr. Quiroz and Mr.

Romaine told Mr. Bitters and myself that Mr.

Romaine would continue on the as lead counsel

[sic] but that he wanted us to remain on the

case. Thereafter, all discovery was provided

to Mr. Romaine.

6. Even after Mr. Romaine because [sic] lead

counsel on the case, I persistently asked Ms.

Kathleen Servatius, the assistant U.S.

attorney handling the matter, to extend a

plea offer to Mr. Quiroz.

7. Throughout Mr. Romaine’s representation

of Mr. Quiroz, II [sic] constantly asked Mr.

Quiroz if he was satisfied with Mr. Romaine’s

work. Mr. Quiroz assured me that he was

satisfied on more than one occasion. He also

told me that he wanted Mr. Romaine to conduct

the trial. Mr. Romaine assured me that he

had tried over 40 federal cases.

8. About one week prior to trial, and due to

the persistence of Mr. Bitters, the AUSA

finally made an offer to Mr. Quiroz. This

offer was reduced to writing in the form of a

plea agreement and letter explaining the

terms of the plea and the sentence of Mr.

Quiroz would face if he proceeded to trial

and was convicted. Mr. Bitters asked me to

communicate that offer to Mr. Quiroz. The

offer was received the Thursday prior to the

trial.

9. I visited Mr. Quiroz and fully explained

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 12 of 24
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

13

the offer to him. I advised Mr. Quiroz as to

the sentence he would face if convicted under

the sentencing guidelines. Myself and Mr.

Bitters had previously discussed the nature

of the charges and possible defenses with the

defendant. I strongly advised Mr. Quiroz to

take the offer and explained to him that I

believed that the government had a strong

case against him and that he would be

convicted. Mr. Quiroz’ response indicated

that he believed that th [sic] was too high,

‘I didn’t kill anybody.’ I explained to him

that the government would not be offering a

lower sentence and that he would have to take

it or go to trial. I advised him to take the

offer. Mr. Quiroz advised me that one of the

government’s witnesses against him, Ernesto

Plancarte, was in jail with him and that

Plancarte had told Quiroz that he would not

testify against him. I told Mr. Quiroz that

it was extremely unlikely that the government

brought Mr. Plancarte to Fresno if he was not

going to testify. Mr. Quiroz was convinced

that Plancarte would not testify and that

without such testimony he could not be

convicted.

10. After speaking with Mr. Quiroz I

notified Mr. Romaine of the government’s

offer and told Mr. Romaine that II [sic] had

discussed it with Mr. Quiroz. II [sic] told

him that Mr. Quiroz thought the prison term

accompanying the offer was too high, he

proclaimed his innocence, and rejected it.

11. Another hearing was scheduled the day

before the trial was to commence. Mr.

Bitters and myself again spoke with Mr.

Quiroz regarding the government’s plea offer. 

Mr. Bitters wanted to ensure that Mr. Quiroz

understood the offer. I again directed Mr.

Quiroz’ attention to the serious consequences

of losing the trial. He indicated that he

wished to proceed to trial because Mr.

Romaine felt that there was a ‘good shot’ at

being acquitted.

12. I was present during several days of the

trial and consulted with Mr. Romaine

concerning a few of the issues that arose

during the trial. Mr. Quiroz was convicted.

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 13 of 24
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

14

13. Mr. Quiroz is Spanish speaking only and

lacks any formal education. I believe Mr.

Romaine was able to convince Mr. Quiroz to

proceed to trial because Mr. Romaine had been

successful in obtaining the Lotto money. I

strongly believe had Mr. Romaine joined Mr.

Bitters and myself in encouraging Mr. Quiroz

to accept the plea offer, Mr. Quiroz would

have accepted the offer.

Also submitted with the Government’s opposition is a Declaration

of William Romaine, who avers in pertinent part:

2. I have previously submitted a declaration

in relation to the defendant’ [sic] petition

to set aside sentence. My prior declaration

set forth the facts as I remembered them

surrounding my role in plea negotiations for

Mr. Quiroz. It did not reflect, however, the

extent of the work which I performed for Mr.

Quiroz, nor the discussions I had with him

concerning his case.

3. I was hired by Mr. Quiroz to assist Mr.

Bitters and Mr. Padilla in late February

2000. At that time, I pulled the court filed

and reviewed the complaint, which was very

detailed and explained the government’s case

against Mr. Quiroz. I used this information

to explain to Mr. Quiroz why his case had not

yet concluded and the federal process. I

became more involved as time passed,

receiving and reviewing discovery provided by

the government in the case. I met with Mr.

Quiroz as many as 15 times, discussing every

aspect of the case with him. Between June

and July 2000, I had extensive discussions

with Mr. Quiroz specifically regarding the

nature of the charges against him, the

elements of the offenses, and the possible

defenses at trial. Through the services of

Spanish language interpreters, some of whom

were court certified and some of whom were

not, we discussed my developing trial

strategy at length during these discussions,

although there were some limitations imposed

on this process by the fact that I was not

fluent in his language and he was not fluent

in mine. I ensured that Mr. Quiroz

understood the charges against him, the law

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 14 of 24
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

15

and evidence, and we had several

conversations that included my mentioning the

potential sentence he might receive if we

lost at trial, although I would always

express considerable optimism about our

chances of prevailing at trial. I had early

on concluded that, based upon the charges

against him, Mr. Quiroz faced a level 40

under the sentencing guidelines and the term

of imprisonment which would accompany the

offense level.

4. As trial approached, my focus on the

defense of the case became increasingly

sharpened and my conversations with Mr.

Quiroz began to center around what I

considered was the government’s central

evidence against Mr. Quiroz: the testimony of

Ernesto Plancarte, and the credibility

problems he presented for the government. An

investigator looked into whether we could

meet with and interview Mr. Plancarte then in

federal custody because I felt that there was

a substantial chance that the jury would not

believe Plancarte’s version of events. In

the few weeks before trial we were first told

by the custodial authorities that we could

not interview Plancarte, then that he had

been transferred to the custody of the Fresno

County Sheriff in preparation for his trial

testimony. In any event, we did not get to

speak with Mr. Plancarte and I so advised Mr.

Quiroz.

5. Regarding the plea of Mr. Quiroz’ codefendants, I believed that their pleas would

result in a stream-lined trial, granted the

defendant a de facto severance (which I felt

was more favorable to Mr. Quiroz’ chances to

prevail at trial), and avoid co-counsel or

co-defendants’ trial strategy to inculpate

Mr. Quiroz as a way of exculpating

themselves. In addition, I did not believe

that the pleas of Mr. Quiroz’ co-defendants

would adversely affect Mr. Quiroz as they

would not be testifying against Mr. Quiroz as

a result of their pleas. Our conversation

with regard to the co-defendants centered

upon speculation as to why they would agree

to plead guilty.

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 15 of 24
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

16

6. As I declared previously, I did not

participate in plea negotiations with Ms.

Servatius regarding Mr. Quiroz’ case. In

fact, when I did broach the general topic of

whether Mr. Quiroz was interested in

exploring a possible plea agreement prior to

trial, I felt that Mr. Quiroz was not

sufficiently comfortable with our speaking

through an interpreter about matters like

this that would afford the aura of candor

necessary to discuss plea bargaining

meaningfully. I deferred that aspect of the

discussion to Mr. Padilla and Mr. Bitters

were handling [sic] that aspect of his case

because I felt that Mr. Quiroz had a more

familiar relationship with Mr. Padilla. I

did not, therefore, regard it as my role to

entertain such discussions with Mr. Quiroz

and understood him to say that he preferred

to have such discussions with Mr. Padilla. 

Regarding the August plea offer, I did not

receive a copy of a plea offer or proposed

plea agreement and did not know that any

writings of such had been provided by the

government. However, I did learn from Mr.

Padilla after that offer was made that an

offer had been made by the government. Mr.

Padilla described to me the general terms of

the offer (and that it would include

forfeiting the Lottery winnings which Mr.

Quiroz had won earlier). Mr. Padilla further

advised me that he had communicated the offer

to Mr. Quiroz and that Mr. Quiroz had

rejected the offer.

7. After careful reflection, I also recall

discussing the fact of the plea offer

suggested by Mr. Padilla in general terms

(not to advise him as to its terms which had

not been provided to me in any detail), but

to ascertain that he was still intent of

proceeding to trial. I indicated to him that

I was aware he had discussed a plea offer

with Mr. Padilla and asked him if he intended

to forfeit the Lottery winnings and go to

jail for 18 years. Mr. Quiroz advised me

that he wanted to go to trial and that he

understood from Plancarte (who was at that

time housed with Mr. Quiroz) that Plancarte

had assured him he would not testify against

him.

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 16 of 24
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

17

Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel by Mr. Romaine and Mr. Bitters because of

their alleged failure to fully and adequately advise him of the

terms of the plea agreement proffered by the Government. 

Petitioner argues that Mr. Romaine was the attorney had he

retained to insure that Mr. Bitters was advising petitioner

properly and effectively protecting his interests and that it was

incumbent on Mr. Romaine to independently advise petitioner of

the law, evidence, and sentencing guidelines as well as to advise

petitioner of his professional assessment of the case. With

regard to Mr. Bitters, petitioner asserts that Mr. Bitters

presented him with only the general concept of the plea offer and

that petitioner does not recall that petitioner was shown a

written offer or that the written plea offer was ever translated

into Spanish for him to review. 

It is clear from the record before the court, including

petitioner’s declaration, that petitioner was aware of the

general terms of the plea offer. Furthermore, petitioner has not

disputed the averments in Mr. Padilla’s declaration that Mr.

Padilla met with petitioner after the written plea offer was

provided and went over it in detail with petitioner and that

petitioner advised Mr. Padilla that he did not want to accept the

plea offer. Mr. Padilla’s undisputed declaration is corroborated

by the declarations of Mr. Romaine. Petitioner’s implication

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because

Mr. Romaine did not also review the written plea agreement with

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 17 of 24
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

18

him is without merit given petitioner’s apparent concession that

Mr. Padilla did so and given his admission that he was aware of

the general terms of the written plea offer.

Furthermore, petitioner has not established the prejudice

prong for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Although petitioner now avers that he would have accepted the

plea offer, it is clear from the record above that petitioner was

made aware of the terms of the proposed plea agreement and still

decided to go to trial. Petitioner has not disputed the

averments in Mr. Padilla’s declaration or the averments in Mr.

Romaine’s second declaration to this effect. It is noted that

petitioner, given his admission that he was aware of the general

terms of the plea offer, took the stand in his own defense and

testified to his innocence.

Petitioner generally contends that Mr. Bitters and Mr.

Romaine were not prepared for trial, thereby depriving petitioner

of the effective assistance of counsel. In so asserting,

petitioner refers the court to the transcript of proceedings on

August 28 and August 29, 2000. On August 28, 2000, the following

occurred:

MR. ROMAINE: In addition, your Honor, we are

prepared to commence trial tomorrow morning,

as scheduled, with a very serious concern

that we’ve had, your Honor. About the middle

of last week, we received about 600 pages of

discovery from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

And in reviewing that, it appears that there

are a number of serious violations of both

Brady versus Maryland and Rule 16, among

other things, your Honor.

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 18 of 24
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

19

The U.S. Attorney apparently has held since

December of last year an expert witness

document relating to handwriting that is

exculpatory under Brady, in part, and is also

- contains decision of expert witness. We

have at the beginning of this case wanted

that discovery provided to us. It was not

provided to us until this last week. Mr.

Quiroz has been in custody in this matter, as

I pointed out in May since March of 1999. 

His speedy trial rights have really dragged

out.

This violation of discovery places a very

serious burden on us. It’s made it - I

certainly had some motions in limine with

regard to that, I would have them prepared if

I had the time for today. And in addition to

that, it’s going to make it more difficult

for us to prepare the jury instructions

because of it. However, we do not want to

push Mr. Quiroz’s trial date back any

further. He’s been in custody for a very

long time.

With these considerations, your Honor, I’d be

prepared tomorrow morning to go to trial and

ask that the Court give me some indulgence

with regard to the jury instructions and the

MOTION in limine.

THE COURT: Ms. Servatius?

MS. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, the report that

described the conclusions of the expert had

been provided. Mr. Meters had created that

report. The expert qualifications were

provided in all the documents that he

examined. Basically, he looked at Western

Union wire transfers and tried to determine

whether or not he could say whether or not

Mr. Quiroz was the individual who signed the

backs of them, and his conclusions are set

forth. Some of them - I don’t see what that

has to do with the jury instructions in the

case. But I can work with Mr. Romaine if

he’s concerned that he doesn’t understand the

nature of what he’s been provided.

MR. ROMAINE: I understand the nature, your

Honor, they were provided last week.

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 19 of 24
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

20

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Romaine, you presented

nothing to the Court. The Court has nothing

it can rule on. You’ve advised that you do

not want to take the benefit of a continuance

as a result of the indictment being amended. 

I don’t have anything to rule on. You’ve

told me you’d like to file some motions in

limine and you’d like to have done something

else. I don’t have anything that I can do

anything about.

MR. ROMAINE: I’m only asking the Court for

indulgence to file motions in limine tomorrow

morning.

THE COURT: I can’t make any ruling on that

because I don’t know any reason why such

MOTION should be late filed.

MR. ROMAINE: Other than the fact that we only

received the discovery that is the substance

of that last week, that’s our concern, your

Honor. That would be what I presented to the

Court. I’m sorry I couldn’t present

something more formal, but, again, because -

it’s certainly not because of us, we’ve had

months and months and months to have this

information, which we haven’t received. 

Because of that, we’re put in an extreme bind

that I can’t really present the Court with

something substantive to rule on.

THE COURT: Then the Court can’t make any

rulings. I don’t know how you can expect me

to make rulings to allow motions in limine in

a case that’s going to start in the morning

or anything on jury instructions, so I have

nothing to rule on so I can’t make any

ruling.

MR. ROMAINE: I’ll attempt to file something

today for the Court to look at, but I don’t

know if I can do that given the elapsed time,

we are concerned about that.

On August 29, 2000, the following transpired:

MR. ROMAINE: ... If the court please, very

briefly, as a continuation of what I

mentioned yesterday, after the appearance

yesterday I met with the U.S. Attorney and

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 20 of 24
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

21

learned, among other things, that there were

about seven boxes of bank records that we

have not been provided.

After concurring with co-counsel on that as

well as the other issues that I raised of

concern, and I had not spoken with Mr. Quiroz

yet, but, your Honor, it appears for the

record in fairness that with that kind of

late discovery a Rule 16 problem, as much as

I do not want Mr. Quiroz to continue to stay

in custody waiting for trial, I don’t know

that it would be fair to be able to prepare

this matter for Mr. Quiroz’ defense with the

discovery of seven boxes of banking records

the eve before trial when apparently the U.S.

Attorney had these documents for a very long

time.

As I indicated yesterday, there is also the

handwriting issue that they had since

December of last year that we just got last

week, 604 pages. It seriously compromises

Mr. Quiroz’ defense.

THE COURT: You brought this up yesterday. 

You weren’t specific about anything. You

just said you had some materials. there is

nothing specific about what you want to do. 

You had the opportunity yesterday on the

superseding indictment to have a continuance. 

You didn’t ask for it. You waived that

right. The jury has been called.

Miss Servatius, has this been discovery that

should have been provided before that is now

being provided?

MS. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, the information

that is contained in the records was

something that was available to counsel. I

don’t intend to introduce the seven boxes. 

It was from the investigation that was

conducted in 1993 through 1995 by the San

Jose Police Department. I spoke with Mr.

Romaine about these and indicated that if he

had financial information of interest to his

client that he wanted to introduce, that we

would make the records available.

THE COURT: When was Mr. Romaine told about

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 21 of 24
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

22

these records, that he could review them?

MS. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, they are in the

report. The description of Agent Bernell’s

(phonetic spelling) investigation, these

documents are in the report, so the

description of bank records, these have been

available to the defense if they wanted them,

and I spoke to Mr. Bitters about this a

couple of weeks ago and indicated to him that

I didn’t plan on using those documents but

that if he wanted to see them, we would make

them available to him because they were in

San Jose. He just had to let me know.

MR. ROMAINE: Your Honor, I am not aware, and

certainly Mr. Bitters is not here to

contradict that.

THE COURT: The point is: Are they listed in

documents that have been given to you

previously in discovery?

MR. ROMAINE: Your Honor, I have not seen

these bank records listed.

THE COURT: I didn’t ask you that, Mr.

Romaine. I said is there a list that you can

refer to that you could get them at any time

you wanted them?

MR. ROMAINE: No, not to my knowledge, except

for yesterday afternoon when I spoke with -

THE COURT: They are not in any of the

documents that you have been furnished in

discovery, they are not referred to?

MR. ROMAINE: I could not answer that in

fairness, your Honor.

Petitioner contends that these colloquies establish that Mr.

Romaine was not familiar with all of the evidence and had not

reviewed it and that “[i]t shocks the conscience that one week

before trial is to commence an attorney would agree to be lead

counsel without reviewing and analyzing all of the discovery

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 22 of 24
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

23

produced by the government, researching and analyzing the law,

and discussing his insights and opinions with the client.” 

Petitioner further contends that the failure of Mr. Bitters to

review the bank records in the seven boxes constitutes

ineffective assistance of counsel because Mr. Bitters “could not

have given defendant [sic] the benefit of his professional advice

based on his knowledge of the evidence in the case.”

The court concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated

ineffective assistance of counsel on this ground. Petitioner

makes no showing that the failure of defense counsel to review

the evidence referred to by Mr. Romaine, apparently belatedly

provided by the Government, prejudiced petitioner. There is no

showing that any of this evidence would have been relevant and

material to petitioner’s defense. This is particularly true with

the bank records from the San Jose investigation since the

Government did not introduce any of that evidence at trial. 

Petitioner makes no showing that defense counsel was unable to

review this evidence during the trial itself or that petitioner

was prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to request a

continuance because of this evidence after the United States had

presented its case in chief.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Rafael Montejano Quiroz’s MOTION to vacate,

set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is

denied.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 23 of 24
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

24

respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06370-REC Document 1 Filed 05/26/05 Page 24 of 24