## Facts

- Malcolm J. Robbins was convicted of capital murder in Santa Barbara County Superior Court and sentenced to death.
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of death on direct appeal.
- Robbins later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising numerous guilt- and penalty-phase claims.
- The California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause primarily to determine the timeliness standards governing capital habeas petitions and to clarify prior timeliness doctrine.
- The proceeding served as a vehicle to formalize standards for handling untimely and successive habeas claims, especially in capital cases with appointed habeas counsel.

## Issues

1. What standards govern when a habeas corpus petition in a capital case is timely, including how to assess “substantial delay” and whether delay is justified.
2. How the timeliness and successiveness doctrines apply to Robbins’s habeas claims, including whether they are barred as untimely, successive, or otherwise procedurally defaulted.

## Decision

- The court reaffirmed and refined California’s habeas timeliness doctrine: claims must be presented without substantial delay after the petitioner or counsel knew, or reasonably should have known, of the claim’s factual and legal basis.
- If substantial delay is shown, the petitioner bears the burden to justify it; absent adequate justification, the claim is denied as untimely.
- The court announced more structured, forward-looking guidance for capital cases, including expectations of diligence and presumptive filing periods keyed to finality on direct review.
- Applying these standards, the court denied Robbins’s habeas petition in full, concluding most claims were procedurally barred as untimely and often also successive.
- Any remaining claims were rejected as facially insufficient or failing on the merits, with the denial resting primarily on independent state procedural grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas corpus is an extraordinary collateral remedy primarily aimed at matters not apparent from the appellate record; it is not a substitute for trial and direct appeal.
- A habeas claim must be filed without substantial delay after its basis is known or reasonably should have been discovered through diligent investigation.
- Substantial delay triggers a requirement that the petitioner plead and prove a sufficient justification; ordinary investigative difficulty, oversight, or tactical delay generally does not excuse lateness.
- Timeliness and successiveness doctrines operate together: claims that could have been raised earlier may be rejected both as untimely and as impermissibly successive.
- Clear, consistently applied timeliness rules function as independent state procedural grounds for denying collateral relief.

## Conclusion

The court used Robbins’s capital habeas petition to refine California’s timeliness and successiveness bars, holding that unjustified substantial delay warrants denial and rejecting Robbins’s petition largely on procedural grounds, with any remaining claims failing for lack of a prima facie showing or on the merits.


In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770 (Cal. 1998)