Opinion
S185447
03-21-2018
ROLDAN (RICARDO) ON H.C.
Order: (dispositive)
On the court's own motion, this matter is transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for adjudication of the claim set forth in this court's June 29, 2016, order to show cause: “why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground that, as alleged in Claim Three of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Juror D.H. concealed on pretrial voir dire that she was acquainted with the prosecutor and had previously worked with him. (See In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97, 111 [“A juror who conceals relevant facts or gives false answers during the voir dire examination . . . undermines the jury selection process and commits misconduct.”]; In re Wallace (1944) 24 Cal.2d 933, 938 [“A prospective juror would hardly commit perjury to conceal his relationship with one of the prosecutors if he were not prejudiced.”].)” Accordingly, this court's June 21, 2017, order directing that a reference hearing be conducted is vacated.
Claim Twenty-Eight is denied on the merits, except to the extent it raises a challenge to the method of execution, which is denied as premature and without prejudice to its renewal after an execution date is set.
Except for Claims Three and Twenty-Eight, all claims are denied as untimely. (See In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780; see also In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 443, 459–476.)
Claims One, Two, Six, Seven, Nine through Nineteen, and Twenty-One through Twenty-Seven, 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. (See also In re Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 476–478.)
Claim Twenty-Nine (including all contentions listed on page 365 of the petition), 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 could have been raised on appeal but was not. (See also In re Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 490–491.)
Claims Four, Five, Eight, Nine, Twenty, and Twenty–Seven, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, are procedurally barred under In re Miller (1941) 17 Cal.2d 734, 735, to the extent they were raised and rejected in connection with petitioner's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus (In re Roldan, S115143). (See also In re Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 496–497.)
Claims Five and Eight, except to the extent they allege ineffective assistance of counsel, are procedurally barred under In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767-768, to the extent they could have been raised in connection with petitioner's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus (In re Roldan, S115143) but were not. (See also In re Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 501–505.)
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.