Opinion
S116750
03-14-2018
DAVIS (STANLEY BERNARD) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
On the court's own motion, this matter is transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for adjudication of the claims set forth in this court's September 10, 2008, order to show cause: “1) false evidence that was substantially material or probative with respect to the special circumstances findings and the penalty determination was introduced at petitioner's trial, as alleged in claim G; [¶] 2) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's biblical references, as alleged in claim K; [¶] 3) petitioner is mentally retarded, as alleged in claim N; [¶] 4) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's comments accusing the defense of fabrication, as alleged in claim O; [¶] 5) cumulative prejudice arises from the facts alleged in claims K and O, as alleged in claim Q; and [¶] 6) cumulative prejudice arises from the facts alleged in claims G, K, O and Q, as alleged in claim S.” Accordingly, this court's September 1, 2010, order directing that a reference hearing be conducted, and the March 11, 2015, order appointing Judge Charlaine Olmedo as this court's referee, are vacated.
All other claims set forth in the petition for writ of habeas corpus are denied.
To the extent petitioner claims that evidence seized in violation of his own or Deandre Brown's Fourth Amendment rights was introduced at trial (Petn., ¶¶ 199-200), claim C is denied on the ground that it is not cognizable on habeas corpus (In re Lessard (1965) 63 Cal.2d 497, 503; In re Sterling (1965) 63 Cal.2d 486, 487–788).
Claim T is denied as premature and without prejudice to petitioner's filing of a renewed petition after an execution date is set.
All other claims are denied on their merits.
The following claims are each procedurally barred, separately and independently, on the ground that they were forfeited by petitioner's failure to raise them in the trial court (In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193): claims B and C (to the extent petitioner contends that the “fruits” of his allegedly involuntary statements to police should have been suppressed, see Petn., ¶¶ 210–214, 223-224).
The following claims are each procedurally barred, separately and independently, on the ground that they could have been, but were not, raised on appeal (In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759): claims E (to the extent petitioner claims that Detective DeAnda testified falsely that Deandre Brown had expressed concern for his safety, see Petn., ¶ 238) and H (to the extent petitioner contends that jurors Kathy Irish and/or Lawrence Yaeger deceived the court about the nature and content of their conversation about the incident in which Irish was followed, see Petn., ¶¶ 655–665, and to the extent petitioner contends that juror Yaeger violated his oath and the trial court's admonitions, see Petn., ¶¶ 666–668) and, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, claims D, K, M and O.
This court retains jurisdiction over all matters concerning the appointment of counsel for petitioner.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, and Kruger, JJ.