Opinion ID: 1247774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Identify Applicable Law.

Text: (19) Defendant contends the record is ambiguous as to the legal principles the trial court applied to its determination of penalty, thus rendering meaningful appellate review impossible. (See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153, 188-189, 204-207 [49 L.Ed.2d 859, 96 S.Ct. 2909]; People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 778 [230 Cal. Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113]; cf. People v. Lanphear (1984) 36 Cal.3d 163, 169 [203 Cal. Rptr. 122, 680 P.2d 1081].) He urges trial judges should be required to designate the instructions they intend to use in reaching their penalty decisions. Contrary to defendant's premise, the court expressly stated the law it would apply, i.e., former section 190.3, except as to the points on which current section 190.3 was more favorable to defendant. [10] The applicable statutes sufficiently set forth the procedures to be followed, the factors to consider and the manner in which the sentencing decision is to be made. Designation of correlative instructions thus is not necessary to permit meaningful appellate review. In a related argument, defendant asserts the court erred at the time it rendered its sentence finding in failing to specify which, if any, of the more favorable provisions of the 1978 statute it had applied. He argues he may thus have been denied the benefit of the 1978 law's apparent mandate of a life sentence when mitigation outweighs aggravation. The court, however, expressly stated it would be bound by the 1978 law if it found that mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating circumstances. (See fn. 10, ante. ) The record is clear the court determined such not to be the case. (Cf. People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 783-784.)