Opinion ID: 1190445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegedly disparate sentence

Text: (29) Defendant contends his death sentence is cruel and unusual and thus prohibited by the federal Constitution because his death sentence is widely disparate to the absence of any punishment imposed on Michael McCray. (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.) Defendant's factual premise is that McCray was legally responsible for the murders as either an accomplice or coconspirator but was never charged with any crime related to the robbery and murders. At trial, the prosecutor conceded as much. We will therefore assume (but only for the purpose of discussion) the correctness of defendant's factual premise. We nevertheless reject defendant's argument that we must conduct an intracase proportionality review. Defendant relies primarily on People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [194 Cal. Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697]. As we have subsequently explained, however, Dillon does not mandate the type of intracase review sought by defendant. In People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207 [253 Cal. Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906], the defendant contended his sentence was disproportionate to his individual culpability because two other participants in the crime received lesser sentences and because there was uncertainty as to his personal culpability. We rejected the argument, noting that his `reliance on Dillon is wholly misplaced.' ( People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 274.) Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d 441, does not mandate any comparison of defendant's sentence with those of other persons involved in the crime, whether they be charged or not. ( People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d 207, 274; People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 121 [249 Cal. Rptr. 630, 757 P.2d 569].) Properly understood, intracase proportionality review is an examination of whether defendant's death sentence is proportionate to his individual culpability, irrespective of the punishment imposed on others. ( People v. Adcox, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 274, italics in original.) In this case, defendant was found to have personally committed the heinous murders of two trusting friends, including a young child, in the course of a robbery. [N]othing in the prior decisions of this court, or of the federal courts, suggests that his punishment is constitutionally disproportionate to `the offense' or `the offender.' ( Id., at p. 275.) The Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution does not require us to incorporate into our proportionality determination any comparison of defendant's sentence with that of another culpable person, whether charged or uncharged. ( Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 53 [79 L.Ed.2d 29, 42, 104 S.Ct. 871] [upholding California's absence of any requirement or practice of comparative proportionality review].) Defendant's punishment is proportionate to his crime. (Even if we were to consider the culpability of McCray, our conclusion would remain unchanged.)