Opinion ID: 1355634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ruling on Automatic Application to Modify Sentence Under Section 190.4, Subdivision (e)

Text: The following issue was not presented in the original briefs; we asked for additional briefing once the point arose during our review of the record. In every case in which a death penalty is returned, section 190.4, subdivision (e), provides in pertinent part that the trial court must review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances ... and shall make a determination as to whether the jury's findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reason for his findings. ... [¶] The judge shall set forth the reasons for his ruling on the application and direct that they be entered on the Clerk's minutes. (§ 190.4, subd. (e), italics added.) In the present case, the trial court merely denied defendant's application for modification without stating any reason for his findings or his ruling. (The motion to reduce the penalty is denied.) The court did state specific reasons for imposing consecutive sentences for defendant's lesser offenses, but the sentencing factors it employed (see rule 421(a), Cal. Rules of Court) were substantially different from those specified in section 190.3. (19) The People concede the error but argue that, in light of the evidence here, it was harmless. Although we performed a harmless-error analysis in a case in which the trial judge had died during the appeal, we also explained in that case that if the judge had survived, we would remand for a new hearing on the verdict-modification application simply out of an abundance of caution, since the trial judge's familiarity with the record would enable him to review the application and state reasons for his determination with relatively little delay and expenditure of judicial resources. ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 200 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]; see also People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 792-795.) The judge who tried the present case is alive and apparently available to hear the matter on remand. Accordingly, we believe a limited remand is appropriate here. The trial judge should rehear the motion personally, on the basis of the record certified to this court. If, however, he is unavailable, the motion may be heard before another judge of the same court. (See People v. Brown (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1247, 1264, fn. 7 [248 Cal. Rptr. 817, 756 P.2d 204].) The judgment convicting defendant of assault with a deadly weapon is reversed. The judgment of conviction is affirmed in all other respects but the judgment of death is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of redetermining defendant's application for modification of the verdict in accordance with this opinion. If the trial court, upon application of the appropriate standards, denies the application for modification, it shall reinstate the judgment of death. If it grants the application, it shall enter a judgment of life without possibility of parole. Any subsequent appeal shall be limited to issues related to the modification application. (See People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 794-795.)