Schwenk v. McDonald
- Edward Davila
- 5:14-cv-04971
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 17
In Schwenk v. McDonald, Judge Davila granted Schwenk’s prison petition after finding counsel failed to convey plea offers.
Eric Schwenk, the Humboldt County District Attorney, and the state proceedings concerning Schwenk’s conviction and sentence were directly affected. The order required reinstatement of a 2008 plea offer and specified what would happen if Schwenk accepted it or if the Superior Court rejected the proposed plea bargain.
What happened
In Schwenk v. McDonald, Eric Schwenk was serving a 25-year sentence after a California conviction for two child-sexual-abuse offenses and a prior-conviction enhancement. He argued that his trial lawyer failed to tell him about formal plea offers.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that counsel did not convey the October 2, 2008 offer for a 13-year sentence or the April 9, 2009 offer. The court also found a reasonable probability that Schwenk would have accepted an offer and that the plea would have been approved, resulting in a better outcome than his 25-year sentence.
Judge Davila granted the petition, found a constitutional violation, and ordered the Humboldt County District Attorney to reinstate the October 2 offer. If Schwenk accepts it, his conviction must be vacated; if the Superior Court does not approve the agreement, plea negotiations must resume.
The detailed version
- Schwenk v. McDonald · No. 5:14-cv-04971
- Edward Davila
- May 29, 2020
Background
Eric Schwenk was convicted after a second jury trial of two counts of lewd acts upon a child and admitted a prior conviction used to increase his sentence. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After pursuing state-court review, Schwenk filed a federal petition challenging his custody.
The federal court held an evidentiary hearing on whether Schwenk’s trial lawyer, Marek Reavis, failed to communicate formal plea offers. The court considered three possible offers: an October 2, 2008 offer for a total 13-year sentence; an October 9, 2008 notation referring to a possible midterm sentence plus the prior conviction; and an April 9, 2009 email offer involving a maximum sentence of 16 years and possible discussion of a 12-year maximum.
Findings about the plea offers
The court found, under the more-likely-than-not standard, that Reavis did not convey the offers at issue to Schwenk. The court found Schwenk’s testimony more credible than Reavis’s generalized testimony that he usually communicated plea offers. The court also found that the October 2 and April 9 offers were sufficiently documented and clear to qualify as formal offers. It found that the October 9 notation was too unclear to qualify as a formal offer.
The court found a reasonable probability that Schwenk would have accepted the formal offers if they had been communicated. It also found a reasonable probability that the plea would have been entered without the prosecution withdrawing it or the trial court refusing to approve it. Any of the formal offers would have produced a better result than Schwenk’s 25-year sentence.
Legal reasoning
The court applied the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Under the governing Supreme Court decisions, defense counsel generally must communicate formal prosecution offers, and a person claiming prejudice must show a reasonable probability that they would have accepted the offer, that the plea would have been entered, and that the result would have been more favorable.
The court concluded that Reavis’s failure to communicate the formal offers denied Schwenk effective assistance of counsel. It further concluded that the state court’s rejection of Schwenk’s claim was unreasonable under the federal habeas-review standards in 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Rulings and remedy
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered the District Attorney of Humboldt County to reinstate the October 2, 2008 offer. If Schwenk accepts the offer, his conviction must be vacated. If the Superior Court does not approve the plea bargain, plea negotiations must resume.
The court also denied Schwenk’s administrative motion to consider additional exhibits and request judicial notice because it was untimely. An earlier order had granted in part his request for an evidentiary hearing as to part of Claim 1 and denied Claims 2 through 7; that earlier ruling is described in the opinion’s procedural history.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.