Opinion
S200464
04-29-2020
SELF (CHRISTOPHER) ON H.C.
Order to show cause issued, returnable in Superior Court
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on March 1, 2012, 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.
Respondent's request for judicial notice, filed October 4, 2012, is granted.
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 ground that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of the trial because counsel was law partners with the attorney representing codefendant Orlando Gene Romero, as alleged in Claim 2.C.
The return is to be filed on or before May 29, 2020.
All remaining claims in the petition are denied on the merits, except Claims 21 and 22, which are denied as premature and without prejudice to renewal after an execution date is set.
Claims 6 (except to the extent it alleges the prosecutor failed to disclose favorable evidence concerning Munoz's plea agreement) and 10 (to the extent it alleges the trial court erred in failing to instruct that victim impact evidence must be proven unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt) are procedurally barred to the extent they could have been, but were not, raised on appeal. (In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759; see also In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 490-496.)
Claims 1 and 4 (except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel) are procedurally barred because petitioner failed to preserve the claims at trial. (In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 199-200.)
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, and Groban, JJ.