Opinion
S219182
07-27-2016
TRUJEQUE (TOMMY ADRIAN) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
Claims One through Five, Eight, Eleven, and Twelve in the petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed June 9, 2014, are denied on the merits. Claims Six, Seven, Nine, and Ten are denied as moot. (See People v. Trujeque (2015) 61 Cal.4th 227 [reversing special-circumstance findings and death sentence].)
With respect to Claim Three, except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, it is procedurally barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759, insofar as it could and should have been raised on appeal but was not, and is also procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 201, insofar as it could not have been raised on appeal, but could and should have been raised in the trial court but was not.
With respect to Claim Four, except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, it is procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 201, insofar as it could and should have been raised in the trial court but was not.
With respect to Claim Eight, except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, it is procedurally barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759, insofar as it could and should have been raised on appeal but was not.
Justice Werdegar would not apply the Seaton bar to any of these claims.