Opinion
S153974
03-29-2017
LEONARD (ERIC ROYCE) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on June 29, 2007, before the 2016 General Election in which the voters enacted Proposition 66, the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016.” This court has stayed the implementation of Proposition 66 in Briggs et al. v. Brown et al. (S238309). If Proposition 66 takes effect, the court would have authority to retain this petition and decide it under the newly enacted section 1509, subdivision (g) of the Penal Code. In these circumstances, the court has elected to rule on the petition at this time.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.
These subclaims are also denied on the ground that they were raised and rejected on appeal (In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225):
1. Petitioner's allegations in Claim One that the trial court's ruling that he was competent to stand trial was not supported by substantial evidence, and that he was prejudiced by the court's failure to appoint the director of the regional center to evaluate him.
2. Petitioner's allegations in Claim Seven that Juror No. 8 committed prejudicial misconduct when he refused to deliberate at both the guilt and penalty phases of trial; that Juror No. 7 committed misconduct by telling the jury that, based on his experience firing handguns, the murder weapon could be accurately fired at close range without expertise; that the jury committed prejudicial misconduct by discussing the appeals process; that the jury committed prejudicial misconduct by discussing the relative costs of the death penalty and life imprisonment; and that the jury committed prejudicial misconduct by discussing petitioner's failure to testify at the penalty phase.
These subclaims are also denied on the ground that they could have been, but were not, raised on appeal (In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759):
1. Petitioner's allegation in Claim Six that the prosecutor violated his right not to incriminate himself by pointing out that the defense had not called an expert to contradict the prosecution's ballistics expert.
2. Petitioner's allegations in Claim Seven that Juror No. 7 committed prejudicial misconduct by concealing his knowledge of handguns and by voting for death without considering the defense's mitigating evidence, that the jury committed prejudicial misconduct by discussing whether petitioner would be able to survive in a Level IV prison setting and whether he would be a danger to staff and other inmates if he was housed off of death row, and that the jury committed prejudicial misconduct by discussing petitioner's failure to testify at the guilt phase.
3. Petitioner's allegation in Claim Eight that the superior court failed to create, preserve, and settle a complete, accurate, and reliable record.
These subclaims are also denied on the ground that petitioner could have, but did not, raise them at trial (In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 200):
1. Petitioner's allegation in Claim Four that the eyewitness identification testimony of prosecution witnesses Sallie Jane Thomas, Alexander Ting, Charlotte Henstra, Shane Whitcomb, and Michael Hinch resulted from unduly suggestive procedures used by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.
2. Petitioner's allegation in Claim Ten that the trial court denied his motion for a change of venue because of Sacramento County's financial woes.
Justice Werdegar would not apply the Seaton bar.