Opinion ID: 1175478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: disproportionality of death sentence

Text: (37) Defendant contends his death sentence must be set aside as disproportionate. Though apparently conceding that disproportionality review is not required by the federal Constitution ( Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 51-53 [79 L.Ed.2d 29, 41-42, 104 S.Ct. 871]; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 777-779), he contends his sentence should be held disproportionate under article I, section 17, of the California Constitution, as interpreted in People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 477-489 [194 Cal. Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697], and In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410 [105 Cal. Rptr. 217, 503 P.2d 921]. It is clear from the present record that the sentence is not disproportionate under those standards. (See People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 771; People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d 57, 118.)