Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Motion to Modify the Verdict (Oliver)

Text: Oliver claims the trial court erred in applying section 190.4, subdivision (e), when evaluating his automatic motion to modify the verdict. He also asserts that the court violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses (by failing to give advance notice that his uncharged crimes would be used against him), his Eighth Amendment rights generally (by refusing to evaluate mitigating evidence and thereby undermining his right to a reliable penalty determination), a state-created liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment (by failing to follow the requirements of section 190.4, subdivision (e)), and parallel provisions of the state Constitution. At a hearing on May 21, 1993, the trial court described its duties to independently reweigh the evidence in aggravation and mitigation, and to determine whether, in its own judgment, the evidence supported the verdict. The court stated that it had reviewed the entire record, including the transcripts and its own extensive notes. Exercising its independent judgment, the court found that the aggravating evidence substantially outweighed mitigation, and that the jury's death verdict was supported by the record. The court then discussed the specific sentencing factors applicable to each defendant. Section 190.4, subdivision (e) provides as relevant here: In ruling on the application, the judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in Section 190.3, and shall make a determination as to whether the jury's findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reasons for his findings. The trial court must make an independent determination concerning the propriety of the death verdict in light of the evidence and the applicable law. ( People v. Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th 833, 891, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1.) The court need not, however, recount every detail supporting its determination. ( People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th 92, 192, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) The ruling need only be sufficiently articulated to assure meaningful appellate review. ( Id. at p. 191, 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) Oliver contends the trial court improperly considered irrelevant aggravating evidence, namely, the noncapital crimes that Lewis alone committed against Mizell and her family. Oliver also claims the court failed to consider relevant mitigating evidence, namely, his age at the time of the capital crimes. Oliver did not object below to any aspect of the court's recitation of its reasons for denying the automatic modification motion. He has forfeited his claims. ( People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1220, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969 [applying the forfeiture rule to hearings on such motions following the finality of People v. Hill, supra, 3 Cal.4th 959, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984, a 1992 case]; see Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) In any event, Oliver's assertions lack merit. As to the contention that the trial court considered irrelevant aggravating evidence, the court observed that the motive for the murders could be found in the terrorist campaign that Lewis waged against Mizell, and in Oliver's close partnership with Lewis in that campaign. It also noted that arson, shooting, [and] threatening telephone calls preceded the murders, and that Oliver personally engaged in some of these acts. Nothing in the record, however, indicates that the court blamed Oliver for all such acts, or used against Oliver acts that Lewis alone committed. As for the trial court's consideration of Oliver's age at the time of the crimes, no error occurred. There is no evidence that the trial court failed to consider this sentencing factor. Rather, the court stated that it was aware of its obligation to ... weigh the evidence, including reviewing all the designated factors under Penal Code section 190.3. It further stated that it has further carefully examined, considered and been guided by every mitigating factor.... The court's ruling indicates its clear understanding of its duty to weigh all the aggravating and mitigating evidence. `[T]he failure to mention [certain] specific matters in mitigation implies, not that they were overlooked or deemed legally irrelevant, but simply that the court found them insubstantial and unpersuasive.' ( People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 991, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103.) Such is the case here. (Cf. People v. Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th 833, 891-892, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1.) Oliver was not a vulnerable youth when the capital crime occurred. The court's failure to mention the age factor implies that it carried little weight. ( People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th 92, 192, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.)