Opinion
S121365
11-30-2022
SNOW (PRENTICE JUAN) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
This amended petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on December 18, 2006, 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.) Under section 1509, subdivision (g) of the Penal Code, the court exercises its authority to retain this petition and decide it.
Petitioner's “Second Application for Leave to File an Additional Exhibit in Support of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,â€ﾝ filed on October 28, 2022, is granted.
This court's October 28, 2015 order to show cause, June 27, 2018 order directing that a reference hearing be conducted, and July 18, 2018 order appointing the referee, are vacated.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, and 15-22, to the extent they challenge the penalty judgment, are denied as moot. (See People v. Snow, Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles Case No. A560682, October 4, 2022 Memorandum of Decision, vacating petitioner's sentence of death.) Except to the extent they are denied as moot, Claims 1 through 22 are denied on the merits.
The following claims are procedurally barred under In re Dixon(1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759, because they could have been but were not raised on appeal: Claim 3, to the extent it contends the prosecutor's arguments reflected racial animus; Claim 6, to the extent it contends, based on statements in the record, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; Claim 13, to the extent it contends the record reflects judicial misconduct; and Claim 18, to the extent it contends the trial court erred by instructing the guilt phase jury with CALJIC Nos. 2.71 and 2.72.
Claim 13, and Claim 18 to the extent it contends it was error to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 2.03, are procedurally barred under In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225, because they were raised and rejected on appeal. (See also In re Reno(2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 476-477.)
Claim 8, to the extent it relies on extra-record facts regarding jury selection, is procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 200, because it could have been presented in the trial court but was not.