Opinion
S190968
08-17-2016
BURNEY (SHAUN KAREEM) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
The petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed February 28, 2011, is denied.
To the extent it is presented as a claim for habeas corpus relief, Claim Fourteen is denied as noncognizable. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474; In re Lindley (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709; see also In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 505 506 (Reno).)
Claims Three, Fifteen, Twenty, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five (insofar as it alleges ineffective assistance of prior habeas corpus counsel), Twenty-Six, and Twenty-Seven are denied on the merits.
Except for Claims Three, Fifteen, Twenty, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five (insofar as it alleges ineffective assistance of prior habeas corpus counsel), Twenty-Six, and Twenty-Seven, all claims are procedurally barred as untimely under In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780-781. (See also Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 443, 459 476.)
With respect to Claims Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, and Sixteen through Nineteen, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, they are procedurally barred under In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225, insofar as they were raised and rejected on appeal. (See also Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 443, 476-490.)
With respect to Claims Eight, Nine, Fourteen, and Seventeen, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, they are procedurally barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759, insofar as they could and should have been raised on appeal but were not. (See also Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 443, 490-496.)
With respect to Claims One, Two, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Nine, Eleven, Seventeen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, and Twenty Five, they are procedurally barred under In re Miller (1941) 17 Cal.2d 734, 735, insofar as they were raised and rejected in petitioner's prior habeas corpus petition. (See also Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 443, 496-501.)
With respect to Claims One, Two, Four, Nine, and Fourteen, they are procedurally barred under In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767-769, insofar as they could and should have been raised in petitioner's prior habeas corpus petition but were not. (See also Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 443, 501 505.)
With respect to Claims Four, Five, Eight, Eleven, Twenty-One, and Twenty Two, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, they are procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 201, insofar as they could and should have been raised in the trial court but were not. Justice Werdegar would not apply the Seaton bar to any of these claims.