Opinion
S176951
05-16-2018
HAWTHORNE II (CARLOS ANTHONY) 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 January 30, 2009, 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 Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is ordered to show cause in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, when the matter is placed on calendar, why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase by failing to investigate petitioner's social history and to present the testimony of mental health experts and a social historian, as alleged in Claim Four.
All remaining claims are denied on the merits.
In addition, procedural bars apply to some claims, or subparts of claims, as follows:
Claims Two, Six, and Eight (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel) are procedurally barred under In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225, to the extent they were raised and rejected on appeal.
Claim Eight (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel) is procedurally barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759, to the extent it is based on the record and could have been, but was not, raised on appeal.
Claim Nine (except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel) is procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 199-200, because it could have been, but was not, raised at trial.
This court retains jurisdiction over all matters concerning the appointment of counsel for petitioner.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Liu, Cuéllar, and Kruger, JJ.