The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES WARE
Petitioner John E. Dannenberg filed a petition for habeas corpus relief with this Court on April 6, 1992. Although concurrent jurisdiction to address a petition for writ of habeas corpus exists in both the district of incarceration and in the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), traditionally, California federal courts hear petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Venue is proper in this district and in San Jose under Local Rule 105-2b as the conviction was obtained in Santa Clara County.
Petitioner was convicted in 1986 for the second degree murder of his wife, and sentenced to 15 years to life. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed in a lengthy written opinion. A petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied, as was a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. An initial limited petition for habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court was also denied. Petitioner then sought habeas relief from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which denied relief with a written opinion. The California Court of Appeal also denied habeas relief, and a second petition to the California Supreme Court was denied as well.
In the instant petition before this Court, Petitioner raises several claims:
1. Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel;
2. Error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on unanimity re: culpable act per CALJIC 17.01;
3. Error in the trial court's exclusion of all defense expert testimony;
4. Error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on each element of the offense;
5. Error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the element of foreseeability;
6. Error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the concurrence of act and intent;
7. Partial verdict instruction was fundamentally unfair;
8. Error in trial court's instruction on implied malice murder when Defendant charged with first degree murder;
9. Insufficient evidence;
10. Prosecutorial misconduct;
11. Error in trial court's failure to require proof of any preliminary fact ...