From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Jimenez

California Supreme Court (Minute Order)
Mar 21, 2018
S167100 (Cal. Mar. 21, 2018)

Opinion

S167100

03-21-2018

ZAMUDIO JIMENEZ (SAMUEL) ON H.C.


Order to show cause issued, returnable in Superior Court (Atkins claim)

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on September 29, 2008, and amended on June 28, 2010, 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, 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 grounds that: (1) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase, as alleged in Claim 10; (2) one or more jurors may have engaged in prejudicial misconduct during the guilt phase deliberations, as alleged in Claim 13; and (3) petitioner is intellectually disabled within the meaning of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304, as alleged in Claim 14 (see In re Hawthorne (2005) 35 Cal.4th 40).

The return is to be filed on or before [30 days from the date of the order].

All remaining claims in the petition are denied on the merits.

Claims 1–6, 13 (except to the extent it alleges prejudicial juror misconduct), 16, and 17, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, are procedurally barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759, to the extent they could have been raised on appeal but were not.

Claims 7, 8, 12, and 15, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, are procedurally barred under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 201, to the extent they could have been raised in the trial court but were not.

This court retains jurisdiction over all matters concerning the appointment of counsel for petitioner.

Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, and Kruger, JJ.


Summaries of

In re Jimenez

California Supreme Court (Minute Order)
Mar 21, 2018
S167100 (Cal. Mar. 21, 2018)
Case details for

In re Jimenez

Case Details

Full title:ZAMUDIO JIMENEZ (SAMUEL) ON H.C.

Court:California Supreme Court (Minute Order)

Date published: Mar 21, 2018

Citations

S167100 (Cal. Mar. 21, 2018)