Opinion ID: 2602047
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Eighth Amendment Challenge to Preexecution Delay

Text: Defendant argues that executing defendant after his lengthy confinement under sentence of death [20] would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the federal Constitution, the California Constitution, and international law. We have repeatedly rejected this claim and do so again here. As we have explained, the delay inherent in the automatic appeal process `is not a basis for finding that either the death penalty itself or the process leading to it is cruel and unusual punishment.' ( People v. Hill [(1992)] 3 Cal.4th [959,] 1016 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984]....) ( People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 574 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29], italics omitted; see People v. Jones, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1267; People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 606 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347]; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 1030-1031 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183].)