In re Crumpton

1 Citing brief

  1. RENO ON H.C.

    Petitioner's Traverse

    Filed February 28, 2011

    (Sanders, supra, 21 Cal.4th at 701-02 n.1). 8 Indeed, this Court has recognizedthatits timeliness rules are discretionary. (See Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 768) (“[o]n occasion , the merits of successive petitions have been considered regardless of whether the claim wasraised on appealorin a prior petition, and witho ut consideration of whether the claim could and should have been pr esented in a prior petition.") (citing /n re Walker (1974) 10 Cal.3d 764; In re Crumpton (1973) 9 Cal.3d 463, 467; Inre Terry (1971) 4 Cal.3d 911; and In re Bevill (1968) 68 Cal.2d 854). N O A exceptions.