Opinion ID: 2509064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Morality of the Death Penalty and Constitutionality of California's Death Penalty Statute

Text: Defendant raises a series of challenges to the imposition of the death penalty, contending that capital punishment is immoral and that the death penalty statute is constitutionally flawed. Respondent counters that any attack on the death penalty generally or as applied to defendant is beyond the scope of the remand order, which specified: Any subsequent appeal shall be limited to issues related solely to the modification application. [Citations.] ( Lewis I, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 292, 266 Cal.Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892.) We agree that this language renders defendant's contentions noncognizable. In People v. Sheldon, supra, 48 Cal.3d at page 963, 258 Cal.Rptr. 242, 771 P.2d 1330, the court remanded for rehearing under section 190.4, subdivision (e). On appeal from the reinstatement of the verdict, the defendant similarly attempted to attack the death penalty, but without success: Any such substantive contentions are clearly beyond the limited scope of the present appeal. As our remand order states, `Any subsequent appeal shall be limited to issues related to the modification application. [Citation.]' [Citations.] ( People v. Sheldon, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1143, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 368, 875 P.2d 83.) Given the same remand order in this case, we find no basis for enlarging the scope of review. To the extent defendant has valid constitutional claims, he may raise them by petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 798, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729.)