Opinion
S142694
02-21-2018
WARD (CARMEN LEE) 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 May 18, 2016, order to show cause: “(1) one or more jurors may have considered extrajudicial information during penalty phase deliberations, as alleged in Claim 2; and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the penalty phase, as alleged in Claim 8.”
All remaining claims in the petition are denied on the merits.
Claims 3 and 9, 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, 2 (except to the extent it alleges that one or more jurors may have considered extrajudicial information during penalty phase deliberations), 3, 4, and 15, 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 2 (except to the extent it alleges that one or more jurors may have considered extrajudicial information during penalty phase deliberations), 5, and 9, 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.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, and Kruger, JJ.