Opinion
S167195
02-20-2019
VALENCIA (ALFREDO) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on October 2, 2008, and amended on August 27, 2012, before the effective date of Proposition 66, the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016.” (See Briggs v. Brown et al. (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 petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
All claims are denied on the merits.
Claims 3 (to the extent it alleges prosecutorial misconduct in questioning of witnesses and argument) and 4 (except to the extent petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias based on prior contact with Eva Perez) 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.)
Claim 3 (to the extent it alleges prosecutorial misconduct in suggesting the defense had rehearsed Dr. Woods' testimony) is procedurally barred to the extent it was raised and rejected on appeal. (In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225; see also In re Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 476-490.)
Claims 3 (to the extent it alleges prosecutorial misconduct for allegedly withholding from the defense favorable evidence that was material to guilt or punishment, conducting an inadequate investigation, presenting false evidence (except to the extent it alleges misconduct in postconviction discovery), and deciding to seek the death penalty), 6 (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel), 7 (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel), 8 (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel), and 10 through 12 are procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 199, because petitioner failed to preserve the claims at trial. (See also In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 476-478.)