Opinion
S141320
02-14-2018
ROBINSON, JR., (JAMES) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
On the court's own motion, this matter is transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for adjudication of the claims set forth in this court's October 1, 2014 order to show cause: “why consistent with Evidence Code section 1150, the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground of juror misconduct, as alleged in Claims 8, 9, and 11 of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed February 23, 2006, and amended on October 23, 2007.” Accordingly, this court's August 19, 2015, order directing that a reference hearing be conducted, and the September 16, 2015, order appointing Judge William C. Ryan as this court's referee are vacated.
All remaining claims in the petition are denied on the merits.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, except to the extent they allege 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.
Claims 1 and 25–27, 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.
Claim 3, 5, 23, and 29, 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.
The following practices will apply to requests that this court (a) pay attorney fees for counsel appointed by this court or (b) reimburse necessary and reasonable expenses related to the habeas corpus proceeding. Such requests will be governed by the Payment Guidelines for Appointed Counsel Representing Indigent Criminal Appellants in the California Supreme Court, Guidelines II.I and III. Counsel must first obtain the superior court's recommendation for payment. However, the superior court's recommendation is not binding on the Supreme Court, which will exercise independent review of the request.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, and Kruger, JJ.