Opinion ID: 1247774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Age and Vietnam Experience.

Text: (26) In addition to the foregoing claim, defendant contends the court refused, or must be presumed to have refused, to consider evidence he presented concerning two other issues: his mental age and the effects of his military service in Vietnam. Insofar as defendant's age is concerned, the point is untenable. In relevant part the court's statement of reasons was as follows. Factor H: `The age of the defendant at the time of the crimes.' [¶] Under the facts of this case, the Court does not consider his age as either a mitigating or aggravating factor. Although most witnesses placed his intellectual development at about a 12-year level, he had fully matured physically, had served in the Job Corps and substantial time in the Army, including his two tours of duty in Vietnam. And according to his statements to the doctors, he had been a truck repairman and driver and a helicopter crew chief and a door gunner while in Vietnam. So considering those factors, the court doesn't feel that age is either a mitigating or aggravating factor. It thus is clear the court considered defendant's age-related evidence, but determined the evidence did not rise to a sufficient level of persuasiveness to establish a mitigating circumstance. The record supports this determination. (See generally People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 456 and cases cited.) In a related vein the court later expressly noted as factors in mitigation defendant's mental retardation and emotional immaturity. There was no error. Defendant's claim concerning the effects of his Vietnam experience is equally meritless. Under both factor (c)  whether the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and factor (g)  whether mental disease or defect impaired the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, the court specifically found defendant was not acting under a post-traumatic stress disorder. Under factor (j)  sympathy factors generally, the court specifically noted the historical background information relating to the defendant provided by his mother and sister and the various expert witnesses, ... This background information necessarily included defendant's substantial time in the Army, including his two tours of duty in Vietnam, referred to by the court in discussing defendant's mental age and testified to at length by defendant's expert, Mr. Wulbrecht. In these circumstances, failure expressly to refer to the general psychological effects assertedly arising out of defendant's Vietnam experience was not error.