Gray v. Brenda M. Cash

• Decision Date: 13 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2:13-cv-0564-KJM-EFB P,2:13-cv-0564-KJM-EFB P
• Parties: MARK WAYNE GRAY, Petitioner, v. BRENDA M. CASH, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

MARK WAYNE GRAY, Petitioner,
v.
BRENDA M. CASH, Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-0564-KJM-EFB P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 13, 2017

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered against him on June 30, 2009, in the Shasta County Superior Court, on charges of spousal rape of an unconscious or sleeping victim, genital penetration with a foreign object through use of controlled substances, four counts of first degree residential burglary, attempted first degree residential burglary, sexual battery, stalking, attempted stalking, and numerous misdemeanors.¹

Page 2

Petitioner received a sentence of 20 years and 2 months in state prison. He seeks federal habeas relief on the following grounds: (1) a violation of the attorney client privilege during his trial violated his federal constitutional rights; (2) the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to support the jury's factual finding that he administered a controlled substance in the commission of the offense of genital penetration with a foreign object; and (3) the decision of the California Court of Appeal on one of his appellate claims violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

The court issued findings and recommendations on December 20, 2016. ECF No. 37. Those findings recommended that petitioner's sufficiency of the evidence claim as to Ambien's status as a controlled substance be granted and his other claims be denied. Id. Both parties filed objections to the findings. ECF Nos. 44, 50. In addition to filing objections, respondent also augmented the record by submitting supplemental documents in paper evidencing the California Supreme Court's denial of a state habeas petition recently filed by petitioner. ECF No. 45. These records were not before the court when it issued its original findings and recommendations. After review of those records and, in light of the arguments in the parties' objections, the court finds it appropriate to vacate its previous findings and issue the following.

Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law and, for the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

In its unpublished memorandum and opinion affirming petitioner's judgment of conviction on appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District provided the following factual summary:

Defendant Mark Wayne Gray met his wife S. when she was only 17 years old. The couple had three children, but the marriage fell apart and she moved out of their house. Rather than get on with his life, defendant turned hers into a living hell. He embarked on a course of conduct calculated to terrify her, drive her crazy, or both. As a result of misdeeds committed both before and after the separation, defendant was convicted by a jury of the felonies of spousal rape of unconscious or sleeping victim (Pen.Code, § 262, subd. (a)(3)), genital penetration with a foreign object (id., § 289, subd. (d)) through use of a controlled substance (id., § 12022.75), four counts of first degree residential burglary (id., § 459), attempted first

Page 3

degree residential burglary (id., §§ 664, 459), sexual battery (id., § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)), stalking (id., § 646.9, subd. (a)) and attempted stalking (id., §§ 664/646.9, subd. (b)), as well as a host of misdemeanors. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 years and two months in state prison.

Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. He also challenges several other convictions on procedural grounds. In the published parts of this opinion, we reject two of his arguments: (1) that the trial court committed reversible error in ordering disclosure to the prosecutor of documents defendant brought with him to the witness stand, over his objection that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege; and (2) that the enhancement for administering a controlled substance for the purpose of committing sexual penetration (Pen.Code, § 12022.75) must be vacated because the prosecution introduced no evidence that "Ambien" was a controlled substance.

As for the rest of defendant's claims, we find no reversible trial error, but shall strike two of the misdemeanor convictions, modify the sentence in minor respects, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Prosecution's Case

S. and defendant met when she was 17 years old and he was 30. They dated, moved in together, got married in 1999, and had three children.

During their marriage defendant began to videotape them having sex, which made S. uncomfortable. A couple of times S. discovered that he had been secretly videotaping her. However, when she confronted him with it, he became angry.

In the fall of 2006, S. began to feel the marriage was not working out. In early 2007, she enrolled in some college classes, which made defendant unhappy.

One night in August 2007, an incident occurred where, after S. rebuffed defendant's sexual advances, he pinned her down on the bed so she could not breathe and assaulted her sexually. She fled the house, stayed at a friend's place and eventually moved into her own residence.²

Once S. moved into her own house in September 2007, she told defendant he was not allowed inside. From then on, unusual and suspicious events began to occur.

The tires in S.'s minivan kept going flat, despite the efforts of the car shop to reinflate them. In November, roofing nails were found

Page 4

in the center of her tires, and in December, two new tires that she had received for her birthday were found slashed.

Various small items that S. kept in her minivan turned up missing, such as work shirts, CD's (compact discs), a phone charger and various items of personal clothing. Lights inside the van that she was sure she had turned off were turned back on.

Unusual occurrences also began happening around S.'s house. The electrical circuit breaker box was turned off mysteriously. Several articles of clothing were found with slits in them. Decorative pumpkins put outside the house repeatedly disappeared. On Thanksgiving Day 2007, the main water valve to the house was turned off. Single shoes of S.'s were missing and numerous items of personal clothing had disappeared. All of the thefts were reported to the police.

After the pumpkins kept disappearing, S. bought a security camera and installed it outside her home. The camera caught a videotape of defendant near her home at a time when she and the children were away. In December 2007, a PC-based video surveillance system S. had purchased was stolen out of her garage.

A private investigator hired by S. recorded two surveillance videos showing defendant entering her locked minivan and removing items from it, including panties, a purse and several CD's. One night in April 2008, S. heard a loud noise upstairs and discovered that a window had been broken. In June 2008, S. suspected that someone had placed spyware on her cell phone. Police subsequently recovered from defendant's house video footage indicating that he had scrolled through S.'s contacts on her cell phone with a gloved hand.

These events left S. shaken and afraid. On September 12, 2008, she obtained a restraining order against defendant.

On September 18, 2008, police obtained an arrest warrant for defendant and a search warrant for his house and car. When the officer read charges of theft or burglary, defendant responded that any items he took were under the belief they were his property.

In the trunk of defendant's car, police found S.'s CD's that had been reported stolen. Under the floor mat, they found a duplicate key to S.'s minivan.

Inside defendant's house, police found a set of keys to S.'s house before she had the locks changed. They also found numerous items S. had reported stolen from her home, including the single shoes that were taken from S.'s closet and her cell phone charger. During the same search, police discovered a VHS tape showing defendant having sex with S. while she was sleeping or unconscious. Numerous other videotapes taken by a hidden camera were discovered, some containing footage showing S. in various states of undress, and another showing defendant digitally penetrating her

Page 5

vagina while she was asleep.³ Officers also found surreptitiously filmed videotapes depicting defendant's next door neighbors engaging in sexual activity.

Defendant's criminal misconduct did not end with his arrest. Defendant used his mother as an intermediary to tell S. that he would agree to whatever child custody arrangement she wanted if she would drop the charges against him. A secretly taped jailhouse conversation indicated defendant and his mother collaborated in trying to avoid a subpoena so that she would not have to testify at trial.

Defendant's former cellmate, Courtney Jones Botta, testified that defendant offered him money to commit acts of petty theft and vandalism against S.'s property. Defendant wanted these acts done while he was in custody, so as to make it appear he was not the perpetrator of the charged crimes.

Defense

Defendant took the stand in his own defense. He testified that he and his wife had a "great sex life." He admitted he used a camera to videotape S. in states of undress and recorded footage of them having sex, but insisted that "90 percent of the time" S. knew about it and did not object.

Defendant stated that he started secretly videotaping S. in June 2007 after their relationship became rocky, because she started acting "suspicious" and "paranoid," like she was hiding something from him. He also believed she was spending time with other men and taking some of his things.

Defendant explained the digital penetration video by

...