Opinion ID: 1311026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of Trial Court's Review of Death Sentence

Text: Breard claims that Code § 19.2-264.5 is unconstitutional because the death penalty can be imposed even when there has been a showing of good cause that a life sentence is appropriate. He further asserts that [t]his process is also unconstitutional because there are no limits on the trial court's discretion and no guidelines for the court to follow in determining when the death penalty is appropriate. Therefore, he asserts, a trial court is allowed to impose the death penalty in an arbitrary and capricious manner. We find these contentions to be meritless. Pursuant to Code § 19.2-264.5, when a jury has fixed a defendant's punishment at death, the trial court, before imposing sentence, must direct a thorough investigation by a probation officer into the defendant's history and background so that the court may be fully advised as to whether the sentence of death is appropriate and just. After considering the report, the court, upon good cause shown, may set aside the death sentence and impose a sentence of life imprisonment. We think the provisions of Code § 19.2-264.5 are clear and provide a meaningful review by a trial court of a death sentence. In the present case, the trial court made an independent review of Breard's death sentence and concluded that there was no good cause to set it aside. Consequently, we hold that Code § 19.2-264.5 is facially constitutional and was constitutionally applied in the present case.