Opinion
S220961
12-21-2022
BLOOM (ROBERT MAURICE) ON H.C.
Order filed
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on September 2, 2014, 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.
The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is ordered to show cause, returnable before the Los Angeles County Superior Court, why relief should not be granted on the grounds that (1) Bloom was actually incompetent during his 2000 retrial, as alleged in Claim 1 of the petition (see, e.g., Pet., pp. 180-239); and (2) defense counsel at retrial rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate Bloom's competence, misunderstanding or disregarding the legal standard for competence, and failing to declare doubt regarding Bloom's competence earlier in the retrial proceedings, as alleged in Claim 2 of the petition (see, e.g., Pet., pp. 312-316, 322, 393-409). The return must be served and filed on or before February 6, 2023. Denied as moot are all claims challenging the convictions for second degree murder and the associated firearm-use and weapon-use findings, as well as the multiple-murder special- circumstance finding and the penalty judgment. (See People v. Bloom (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1008, 1061-1062.)
All remaining claims are denied on the merits.
Claim 1, to the extent it alleges the trial court should have declared a doubt about petitioner's incompetence and petitioner's waiver of his right to be present at the sanity trial was invalid, and Claim 3, to the extent it alleges improper vouching by the prosecutor, are procedurally barred under In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225, because they were raised and rejected on appeal. (See In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 476-477.)