In re Reno

Bad Law
146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 297·2012 Cal. LEXIS 8295·55 Cal. 4th 428·2012 WL 3764521·283 P.3d 1181
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2012S124660California40,704 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

We issued an order to show cause in this case to address a problem that, over time, has threatened to undermine the efficacy of the system for adjudicating petitions for collateral relief in cases involving the death penalty. The cases of those individuals sentenced to suffer the ultimate penalty in this state are automatically appealed directly to this court, bypassing the intermediate Court of Appeal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) Should this court affirm the judgment on direct appeal, such defendants are entitled to further challenge the judgment by filing in this court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In the event this court denies the habeas corpus petition, all (or nearly all) capital defendants proceed to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. But because the federal courts require claims presented there to have first been exhausted in state court (Baldwin v. Reese (2004) 541 U.S. 27, 29 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 64 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 ]; see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A)), capital defendants quite typically file a second habeas corpus petition in this court to raise unexhausted claims. Third and fourth…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.