Opinion
S209679
03-13-2019
JOHNSON (LUMORD) ON H.C.
Order to show cause issued, returnable in Superior Court
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 2, 2013, before the effective date of Proposition 66, the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016.” (See Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 862, rehg. den. Oct. 25, 2017.) Under section 1509, subdivision (g) of the Penal Code, the court exercises its authority to retain this petition and decide it.
The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is ordered to show cause in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, when the matter is placed on calendar, why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner is actually innocent of the first degree murder of Martin Campos by personal use of a firearm, as alleged in Claim 1; and (2) There was jury misconduct at the guilt phase deliberations because members of the jury overtly appealed to race during deliberations, as alleged in a subclaim of Claim 7.
The return is to be filed on or before April 12, 2019.
All remaining claims are denied on the merits.
In addition, to the extent it does not allege ineffective assistance of counsel, Claim 4 is procedurally barred on the ground it could have been but was not raised on appeal. (In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759.) Claim 8 is procedurally barred on the ground it could have been raised before the trial court but was not. (In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 201-203.) To the extent they do not allege ineffective assistance of counsel, the subclaims in Claim 11 alleging error during jury selection of the first jury are procedurally barred on the ground that they were raised and rejected on appeal. (In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225.) To the extent they do not allege ineffective assistance of counsel, the subclaims in Claim 11 alleging errors during jury selection of the penalty phase retrial jury are procedurally barred on the ground they could have been raised on appeal but were not. (Dixon, p. 759.)
This court retains jurisdiction over all matters concerning the appointment of counsel for petitioner.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, and Groban, JJ.