People?v.?Webster?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?411?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?31;?814?P.2d?1273 [No.?S004528.?Crim.?No.?23128. Aug?30,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?LARRY?JUNIOR?WEBSTER,?Defendant?and?Appellant. [No.?S007757. Aug?30,?1991.] In?re?LARRY?JUNIOR?WEBSTER?on?Habeas?Corpus. (Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?62613,?Sheldon?H.?Grossfeld,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?[54?Cal.3d?412]?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli?and?Arabian,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk,?Broussard?and?Kennard,?JJ.) COUNSEL Joseph?D.?Allen,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?Allen?&?Allen?and?David?K.?Allen?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White?and?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?[54?Cal.3d?423]?Overoye,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Jane?N.?Kirkland,?Ward?A.?Campbell?and?Edmund?D.?McMurray,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION BAXTER,?J. Defendant?Larry?Junior?Webster?and?three?other?men?were?jointly?tried?on?charges?arising?from?the?death?of?William?Burke.?A?jury?convicted?defendant?of?first?degree?murder?with?personal?use?of?a?deadly?and?dangerous?weapon?(Pen.?Code,????187,?189,?12022,?subd.?(b)),fn.?1?robbery?(??211),?conspiracy?to?commit?first?degree?murder?and?robbery?(??182,?former?subd.?1?[now?subd.?(a)(1)]),?and?grand?theft?of?an?automobile?(former???487,?subd.?3?[see?now???487h]).?Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?the?jury?found?as?special?circumstances?of?the?murder?that?defendant?intentionally?committed?it?while?lying?in?wait?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15))?and?while?engaged?in?the?commission?or?attempted?commission?of?a?robbery?(id.,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?After?a?penalty?trial,?the?jury?fixed?defendant's?punishment?at?death.?His?motion?for?modification?of?the?death?verdict?(??190.4,?subd.?(e))?was?denied.?Defendant's?appeal?is?automatic. We?find?no?prejudicial?error?affecting?either?the?guilt?or?penalty?judgments.?We?will?therefore?affirm?them?in?full. Defendant?has?filed?a?separate?petition?for?habeas?corpus?alleging?(1)?that?his?trial?counsel?rendered?ineffective?assistance?in?various?respects?and?(2)?that?newly?discovered?evidence?warrants?guilt?and?penalty?retrials.?We?conclude?that?the?petition?fails?to?state?a?prima?facie?case?for?relief.?We?will?therefore?deny?the?petition. Guilt?Trial Prosecution?evidence. The?principal?prosecution?witnesses?were?Bruce?Smith?and?Michelle?Cram.?As?the?jury?knew,?Smith?had?already?pled?guilty?to?second?degree?murder?in?connection?with?the?homicide,?and?Cram?had?been?granted?immunity?in?return?for?her?testimony.…