San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogDiscovery under Racial Justice Act requires an ongoing court proceeding
In re TRAVIS LANELL MONTGOMERY on Habeas Corpus. (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2024, No. D083970) 2024 WL 4099744, at *1
Summary: Montgomery appealed an order denying a motion for discovery he made in connection with a postjudgment petition for writ of habeas corpus that sought relief for alleged violations of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA or Act). The Court concluded the order is not appealable and dismissed the appeal.
In 2008, a jury found Montgomery guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and one count each of robbery, attempted robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon; found true firearm and gang enhancement allegations; and found true Montgomery had two prior juvenile adjudications that constituted strikes under the “Three Strikes” law. The trial court sentenced Montgomery to prison for a term of 61 years to life that was later reduced to 26 years to life. (People v. Henderson (Oct. 5, 2010, D054493) [nonpub. opn.].)
In January 2024, Montgomery sent the trial court a “declaration” “raising RJA habeas claims.” He alleged, “The prosecution sought more severe charges against [him] than against members of another race, ethnicity, or national origin.” (See Pen. Code, § 745, subd. (a)(3); undesignated section references are to this code.) Montgomery cited the provision of the Act authorizing the defendant to “file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state” (id., subd. (d)) and attached a “motion for discovery” under the Act. Montgomery asked the court to “grant this motion invitation for the court to recall sentence on its own motion.”
The trial court treated Montgomery’s declaration as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and summarily denied it for failure to state a prima facie case for relief. In its denial order, the court stated: “Petitioner has also attached a motion for discovery under section 745, subdivision (d). Without addressing the merits of the discovery request, this court denies the freestanding discovery motion for lack of jurisdiction to consider post-judgment motions.”
Montgomery filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order in which he wrote, “Racial Justice Act claim denial is an order made after judgement affecting substantial rights and is appealable under P.C. 1237(b).” He also asserted the denial of his “request for discovery is reviewable on appeal.”
The Court of Appeal requested briefs on whether the trial court’s order is appealable to the extent it denied Montgomery’s motion for discovery under the RJA.
The Racial Justice Act and ancillary proceedings
A motion for discovery under section 745, subdivision (a) is not intended as ‘an independent remedy’ but as ‘ancillary to an on-going action.’ That ongoing action may be: (1) a criminal case in which a defendant has filed a motion under section 745, subdivision (b); (2) an appeal in a criminal case in which a defendant has moved for a stay of the appeal and a remand to the trial court to file a motion under section 745; (3) a habeas corpus proceeding alleging a violation of section 745, subdivision (a) and commenced after judgment in a criminal case by a defendant still in custody; or (4) a proceeding to vacate a conviction or sentence alleging a violation of section 745, subdivision (a) and commenced after judgment in a criminal case by a defendant no longer in custody. The RJA does not authorize a freestanding motion for discovery; it only authorizes discovery in a pending proceeding in which the defendant has alleged a violation of section 745, subdivision (a).
Here, there was no pending proceeding in which Montgomery could seek discovery. He attached a discovery motion to a “declaration” “raising RJA habeas claims,” which the trial court treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court proceeded in accordance with the provision the RJA added to section 1473 and with prior case law by determining whether the petition stated a prima facie case for relief before considering the discovery motion.
The order denying Montgomery’s petition without issuing an order to show cause was final when filed (Jackson v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1064, fn. 5). The trial court would have “exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering postconviction discovery in the absence of any proceeding pending before and correctly denied Montgomery’s motion for discovery under the Act for lack of jurisdiction.
An order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341, 344)
Montgomery’s RJA Claim
The RJA authorizes a defendant who is in custody to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of section 745, subdivision (a) “in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Where, as here, “the superior court denies the petition, the petitioner may then file a new petition in the Court of Appeal.” Montgomery may renew his motion for discovery under the Act. (§ 745, subd. (d).) Following this course would keep in one proceeding the substantive claims under the Act and the related discovery motion.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.