What is the test for a judge to bar a person from making a motion in a capital habeas corpus proceeding against the death sentence?

When we consider procedural due process claims under the California Constitution, we weigh four factors: " (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; (3) the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail; and (4) the dignitary interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds, and consequences of the action and in enabling them to present their side of the story before a responsible government official. " ( People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 862863, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 183, 187 P.3d 1018.) Considering the weighty private interest at stake in a capital habeas corpus proceeding, the risk of error created when potentially meritorious claims are barred even if presented as promptly as reasonably possible upon discovery, and the dignitary significance of ensuring the validity of death judgments before execution, it is at least questionable whether governmental interests in finality of judgments and conservation of judicial resources can justify a rule barring all but a very narrow class of claims presented in second or subsequent petitions regardless of whether barred claims could have been presented earlier. ¹²

[489 P.3d 322]

[280 Cal.Rptr.3d 329]

[11 Cal.5th 738]