In re Robinson

Filed 5/16/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re JAMES ROBINSON, JR., B293216

on Habeas Corpus. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No PA007095.)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS on petition for writ of habeas corpus. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Order to show cause discharged.

Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James W. Bilderback II, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Joseph P. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. ******

In 2016, the California voters approved Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016. Among other things, Proposition 66 altered the procedures for collateral review of convictions resulting in a sentence of death. (Pen. Code, §§ 1509, 1509.1.)1 This case presents a threshold question: Do Proposition 66’s procedures for appealing the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from the superior court to the Court of Appeal apply to a petition originally filed with the Supreme Court prior to Proposition 66’s enactment when the Supreme Court first referred part of the case to the superior court for fact finding and then, after Proposition 66’s enactment, transferred the outstanding issues to the superior court “for adjudication”? We conclude that Proposition 66’s procedures apply and that the Supreme Court invoked those procedures in transferring the outstanding issues to the superior court for adjudication. Accordingly, this appeal from the superior court’s denial of the petition is jurisdictionally proper. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts and Direct Review of Conviction In 1993, a jury found James Robinson, Jr. (defendant) guilty of two counts of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and one count of second degree robbery (§ 211). The jury also found true two special circumstances rendering defendant eligible for the death penalty—namely, that he committed multiple murders

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.