Opinion ID: 2612432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Modification of Penalty

Text: Finally, defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in ruling on the automatic modification motion (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) by failing to consider that defendant had no prior felony convictions. (§ 190.3, factor (c).) (29) [I]n ruling on the automatic motion to modify a death verdict, the trial judge's function is not to make an independent and de novo penalty determination, but rather to independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then to determine whether, in the judge's independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. [Citations.] ( People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1045 [264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627], original italics.) The court, in so ruling, must set forth its reasons with sufficient particularity to allow effective appellate review. ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 199-201 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 793-794.) (30) Here, the record reveals that the trial court was aware of and executed its responsibilities under section 190.4, subdivision (e), with particular care and attention to detail. The court prefaced its analysis by expressly noting that its duty was to consider each of the circumstances in aggravation and mitigation independently. The court then proceeded to review each of the statutory penalty factors and special mitigating factors that had been read to the jury, cataloging the evidence that was pertinent to each, stating its views as to the direction in which the evidence cut, and ultimately concluding that the jury's findings and verdicts are not only supported by the weight of the evidence, but the Court in its independent review of all the evidence finds the jury verdicts and findings are not contrary to the law or evidence. The judge placed primary aggravating weight on the circumstances of the crime (§ 190.3, factor (a)), which evidenced a particularly cold-blooded and calculated killing, and the presence of prior criminal activity involving the use of violence (factor (b)), as evidenced by the two San Bernardino homicides. The court found that the expert psychiatric evidence offered by defendant did not show that the crimes were committed while defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (factor (d)) or that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his acts or conform his behavior to the requirements of law was impaired by mental disease or defect (factor (h)). Nevertheless, the court considered the latter to be a mitigating factor. The court found factors (c) (prior felony convictions), (e) (victim participation or consent), (f) (moral justification), (g) (duress), (i) (the age of defendant), and (j) (whether defendant was an accomplice) to be inapplicable. With respect to factor (k) (any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime), the court found the special factors requested by defendant to be mitigating. [13] Defendant correctly observes that the trial judge mislabeled factor (c) (the absence of prior felony convictions) as inapplicable. The judge and jury were, of course, free to view the absence of prior felony convictions as a factor in mitigation. ( People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 884-885 [251 Cal. Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423].) However, the court was plainly aware that defendant had not suffered a prior felony conviction and clearly did not misconstrue factor (c) to be a factor in aggravation. (Cf. People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1186 [259 Cal. Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730].) Moreover, the judge placed primary emphasis on the brutal and cold-blooded nature of the murders. The court's statement of decision makes clear that it did not consider the issue of penalty to be a close one. Thus, any error in the trial court's analysis with respect to this one penalty factor was harmless by any applicable standard. ( People v. Hamilton, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1186-1187; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 462 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)