Opinion ID: 1113445
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Change in the Law

Text: (16) A fourth exception to the Waltreus rule, established by case law, has permitted a petitioner to raise in a petition for writ of habeas corpus an issue previously rejected on direct appeal when there has been a change in the law affecting the petitioner. (See In re Terry, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 916 [new United States Supreme Court decision justifies postappeal habeas corpus petition]; In re King (1970) 3 Cal.3d 226, 229, fn. 2 [90 Cal. Rptr. 15, 474 P.2d 983] [new United States Supreme Court cases justify raising issue on habeas corpus even though petitioner failed to appeal]; In re Jackson, supra, 61 Cal.2d 500 [new California Supreme Court decision justified postappeal habeas corpus petition].) Petitioner claims Johnson v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App.3d 1093 [256 Cal. Rptr. 651] (hereafter Johnson ), a Court of Appeal decision filed after his appeal was final, effected a change in the law thereby justifying his postappeal habeas corpus petition. We reject the argument at the threshold because, as we explain, post, at page 843 et seq., the question regarding the proper method of age calculation was unsettled in prior cases, and no uniform rule had emerged. Because Johnson, supra, 208 Cal. App.3d 1093, simply added to the division in authority on this issue, it did not create a new rule of law. This new-rule-of-law exception to the Waltreus rule is, therefore, inapplicable on these facts.