Opinion ID: 2621092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claim of Disproportionate Punishment

Text: Should we accept defendant's arguments that evidence of Rogers's murder and the arson incident were inadmissible, defendant asserts that his culpability is no longer proportional to his death sentence. Defendant also points out the trial court expressly gave little or no weight to the April 1986 purse snatchings, and the Norman L., Steven 0., and inmate assaults, as factors in aggravation. Because the trial court declined to consider some incidents in aggravation, and, as defendant argues, should not have considered other incidents in aggravation, defendant's sentence is now disproportionate to his culpability under the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, article I, section 17. We disagree. As discussed previously, the evidence regarding defendant's involvement both in Rogers's murder and in the arson incident was admissible. Thus, defendant's claim of disproportionate punishment necessarily fails.