Opinion ID: 2551468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Facial Validity of the 1978 Death Penalty Law; Other Subclaims

Text: Finally, defendant maintains that the 1978 California death penalty statute is unconstitutional as a matter of state and federal law. He presents a series of arguments in favor of his view. But as `[a] general matter at least, the 1978 death penalty law is facially valid under the federal and state charters.... We see no need to rehearse or revisit our holdings or their underlying reasoning.' ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 478, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) In particular, defendant urges that various guaranties contained in the federal Constitution were violated by these instruction-based acts or omissions: failing to (1) identify which factors were aggravating and which were mitigating, (2) delete irrelevant mitigating factors, (3) define the meaning or alter the language of certain factors, (4) require written findings on the aggravating factors, and (5) require proof of all aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, that aggravation outweighed mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt, and that death was the proper penalty beyond a reasonable doubt. We decline to reconsider our views on these claims, which we have repeatedly rejected. ( People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th 622, 704-705, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 [subclaims 1 and 2]; People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 886-887, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305 [subclaims 1, 3, 4, and 5]; People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 479, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442 [subclaims 3, 4, and 5].) In addition, defendant claims that the 1978 death penalty law, as interpreted by this court, is invalid for failing to adequately narrow the class of first degree murderers eligible for the death penalty. This claim, too, we have rejected. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 479, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) And defendant claims that the discretion conferred on the district attorney of each county to seek the death penalty results in a county-by-county disparity in capital prosecutions, causing arbitrariness forbidden by the federal Constitution. This claim, too, we have rejected. ( People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 702, 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213; see also People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 479, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) Defendant further claims that [t]he lack of any requirement of intercase or intracase proportionality review and of any meaningful such undertaking in this case at the time of trial or on appeal violates [his] Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection ... and the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment[s].... Regarding intercase proportionality review, we have repeatedly rejected the claim. (E.g., People v. Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th 701, 772, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754.) Regarding intracase proportionality review, he is mistaken: such review is available on appeal. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 478, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) But he does not seek it. (See also People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786, 887, 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305.) Finally, defendant claims the trial court's apparent denial of his motion for a separate penalty phase jury violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. But he does not accompany this claim with argument, and appears to concede that it is without merit. In any event, no reason appears for the court to have deviated from the legislative preference to use a single jury to determine guilt and penalty. ( People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1059, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 988 P.2d 531.)