Opinion ID: 1238139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Modification Motion

Text: (76), (77) Defendant contends the judgment of death must be reversed or the matter remanded for a new hearing on the application for modification of verdict (ง 190.4, subd. (e)) for two reasons: (1) the trial court double counted a burglary conviction as two aggravating circumstances under factors (b) and (c); and (2) the trial court improperly read and considered matters in a probation report. Defendant's first contention is plainly without merit. Under section 190.4, subdivision (e), the court is directed to independently review and reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and to determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. ( People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 634 [268 Cal. Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127].) The only evidence the court is to review is that which was before the jury. ( Id. at pp. 634-635.) Since the jury was clearly entitled to evaluate the prior burglary for its relevance under both factors (b) and (c) ( People v. Whitt, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 654, fn. 26; People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 764), the court was similarly authorized. For the same reason, however, the court should not have considered the probation report. Under section 190.4, subdivision (e), the court is directed to review the evidence presented to the jury; a probation report is not presented to the jury. ( People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 287 [266 Cal. Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892].) Nevertheless, on the record presented the error must be deemed nonprejudicial. In denying the application, the court considered each of the statutory factors in light of the evidence presented at the penalty phase hearing, and concluded: I am persuaded by my own independent review and determination, based on all the facts and evidence in this case, that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that the proper verdict is death. The trial court made no reference to any of the potentially prejudicial matters contained in the probation report. [29] Indeed, it is apparent from the record that they played no role whatsoever in the court's decision. In articulating its reasons for denying the application, the court relied exclusively on the circumstances of the crime, which it described as wanton and brutal, the presence of prior violent criminal activity, which the court characterized as particularly reprehensible, and the presence of a prior felony conviction. [A]bsent evidence in the record to the contrary, we must assume that the court was not improperly influenced by the report in ruling on the application. ( People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 274 [253 Cal. Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906]; accord People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 540 [268 Cal. Rptr. 126, 788 P.2d 640].) Under the circumstances, we perceive no reasonable possibility the court's reading of the probation report affected its ruling. ( People v. Ramirez, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1202.)