Opinion ID: 2633509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: Delay Inherent in Capital Appellate System

Text: Defendant contends that the delay in appointing appellate counsel and hearing this automatic appeal (from the judgment in [May 1995] to the present) deprived him of due process, and that his execution after such delay would serve no legitimate penological purpose and would therefore violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have rejected substantially identical contentions in several recent cases ( People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 462-464, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78; People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 605-606, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347; People v. Frye [(1998)] 18 Cal.4th [894,] 1030-1031, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183) and find no cause to reconsider those decisions here. ( People v. Snow, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 127, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749; accord, People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 942, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 116 P.3d 494; People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 574, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29; People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 1014-1016, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984.) In particular, we have previously explained the reasons for rejecting defendant's claim (made in reliance on decisions of foreign courts) that a prolonged wait for execution is itself cruel treatment precluding subsequent execution. (See Frye, at pp. 1030-1031, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.)