Opinion ID: 1372628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion to Modify the Penalty.

Text: (46a) Defendant asserts that the court erred under state law in denying his application to modify the death sentence by failing to independently review the evidence to determine whether the jury's findings and verdict were contrary to the law and evidence, and by failing to state the reasons for its ruling. He also contends perfunctorily that the asserted error resulted in violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, in essence because it deprived him of a full consideration of mitigating circumstances and a reliable sentencing determination. [8] (47) Under section 190.4, subdivision (e), a defendant sentenced to death is deemed to have automatically applied for a sentence modification. In ruling on the application, the trial judge must independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and determine whether, in the judge's independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. [Citation.] The judge must also state on the record the reasons for the ruling. [Citation.] ( People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th 408, 477.) (46b) The trial court reviewed the mandate of section 190.4, subdivision (e), and stated that it had reviewed and examined all the evidence. The court stated, I don't take it as being the intent of [section 190.4, subdivision (e)] to give the Court the prerogative of exercising its own individual viewpoints regarding how the case should ultimately come out, but instead that section compels me to review what was presented to the jury and then to determine whether their finding was a mistake. In other words, I don't think I can act as that final arbitrator of the finder of fact in necessarily overruling what the other twelve members of that panel did absent some clear showing that their evaluation was wrong. The preceding comments are somewhat enigmatic and difficult to interpret. More clearly wrong, however, were the court's additional comments that I think the citizens of this state under our system, absent some overwhelming contrary consideration, have been given the choice or the responsibility, I should say, of choosing what penalty to impose. And I for one do not feel, absent some compelling legal or factual difficulty, to [ sic ] overturn that finding. We do not know whether the missing material in the previous sentence is be obliged, be compelled, be able, or some other phrase. But we agree with defendant that in making these comments the court misstated the applicable legal standard under section 190.4, subdivision (e). The record of the hearing as a whole persuades us, however, that even though the court, in isolated instances, misstated the applicable standard, it nevertheless applied the proper concept. Not only did the court's prefatory comments indicate that it had the appropriate standard in mind, but it stated, in comments made before those just quoted, The Court has and it does find that the evidence concerning the truth of those special circumstances as submitted to the jury, and that is that Mr. Mayfield in this case was convicted of two charges of murder, one of which was at least in the first degree, is conclusive[,] and the jury's assessment of the evidence that the circumstances in aggravation outweigh[] the circumstances in mitigation ... is supported by the weight of the evidence and that their decision that the imposition of death is the appropriate verdict is not contrary to the law or evidence. The court concluded, the Court's assessment is that the factors in aggravation beyond a reasonable doubt outweigh those in mitigation; that the finding of the jury was neither contrary to the law or evidence, and the automatic motion for modification by [ sic ] the jury verdict of death as to the Defendant is denied. Thus, the court correctly applied the law ( People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 477), even if it did not correctly and consistently pronounce it. The court carefully reviewed the record and independently determined that the penalty verdict was not contrary to law or the evidence presented. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) There was no state law error. Defendant's constitutional claims largely are asserted perfunctorily and without argument in support. Therefore we do not consider them. ( People v. Roberts, supra, 2 Cal.4th 271, 340-341.) Defendant does, however, argue his claim that the court's action rendered his sentencing unconstitutionally arbitrary. He grounds his assertion on the belief that the trial court did not conduct an independent review of the evidence. We have, of course, just explained that we conclude otherwise.