explaining that a state court may bar habeas claims under either California’s rule requiring a timely objection at trial or the Dixon bar, if both could apply
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a state court may bar habeas claims under either California’s rule requiring a timely objection at trial or the Dixon bar, if both could apply
- “What we mean when we invoke the Dixon bar is that the claim is based on the appellate record, and thus was fully cognizable on appeal insofar as it was preserved at trial.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I see no need, however, to announce today that the newly created procedural bar will apply even to “claims of constitutional error that are ‘clear and fundamental, and strike[] at the heart of the trial process.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 199, quoting In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 834 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 855 P.2d 391 ].) The majority does not assert that any of petitioner’s claims meets that high standard. Indeed, as the majority explains, each of petitioner’s claims ultimately lacks merit, either because he has failed to state a claim or because he has failed to show prejudice. Accordingly, I would postpone consideration of exceptions until presented with a conviction in which the new rule’s application threatens a miscarriage of justice. (Cf. Harris, supra, at pp. 825-826, 831, 833-834 .) To announce that a new rule will have no exceptions is far too easy when the facts of the case at hand do not offer a serious test of the rule’s fairness and wisdom.