Opinion
S180828
07-22-2020
CURL (ROBERT ZANE) ON H.C.
Order to show cause issued, returnable in Superior Court
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on March 9, 2010, 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.) 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 in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, when the matter is placed on calendar, why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the grounds that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase for failing to investigate and present evidence of petitioner's juvenile institutional history and prison institutional history, as alleged in Claim 6.
The return is to be filed on or before August 21, 2020.
All remaining claims in the petition are denied on the merits.
Claims 2 (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel), 4 (to the extent it alleges prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument and by eliciting misleading testimony from Detective Pete Chavez), 8, and 10 (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel) 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 4 (to the extent it alleges the prosecutor committed misconduct involving alleged inducements or benefits for DeSoto's testimony and DeSoto's alleged perjured 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.)
Claim 12 is procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 201, because Curl failed to preserve the claim at trial. (See also In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 476-478.)