Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Automatic motion to modify penalty

Text: For the first time in his reply brief, defendant contends that the trial court employed an incorrect legal standard to review the jury's determination, failed to reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances independently, and failed to state its reasons adequately in denying his application to modify the death verdict pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (e). Under that statute, the trial court is required 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. Millwee, supra, 18 Cal.4th 96, 166, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 418, 954 P.2d 990; People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th 83, 150, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887; People v. Marshall, supra, 50 Cal.3d 907, 942, 269 Cal. Rptr. 269, 790 P.2d 676.) Defendant observes that in its statement of reasons for denial of the motion to modify the death verdict, the trial court made references to determining whether the jury had a substantial basis for rendering its verdict, whether the verdict was adequately supported by the evidence, and whether the trial was fair and free of error requiring the verdict to be set aside. Defendant urges that, in effect, the trial court decided whether the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial was fair, rather than itself reweighing the evidence pursuant to the statutory direction. The record reflects that in describing its duties with regard to the motion, the trial court also stated it was required to go over the entire trial and the penalty phase with a fine tooth comb to be sure that everything was done correctly and that the court can find and be comfortable in its own mind that the jury had adequate basis for making the recommendation that they made and whether ... the court might want to disagree with the jury and reduce the penalty.... The trial court advised, I have gone over my trial notes ... I looked at the exhibits. I have analyzed the testimony of each witness.... The trial court looked for every conceivable angle upon which we could do something other than what the jury has proposed to do in this case. The trial court considered and weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the same manner in which the jury is required to do. The court thoroughly perused its notes and is satisfied that the jury has arrived at a fair and legal determination [of penalty] and has concluded that the jury has not erred and that their verdict must be upheld. The trial court's comments do not indicate that it believed it must uphold the verdict if the verdict was supported by substantial evidence, or if, overall, the trial was fair. Although the trial court also discussed whether defendant received a fair trial and whether errors were made, the court's discussion as a whole demonstrates an awareness that it was required independently to reweigh all the evidence, including the mitigating evidence. ( People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th 865, 971-972, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 846-847, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436.) Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to state on the record its specific reasons for denying the application to modify penalty and merely made a general statement that the circumstances in aggravation outweighed the circumstances in mitigation. Defendant cites People v. Bonillas (1989) 48 Cal.3d 757, 801, 257 Cal.Rptr. 895, 771 P.2d 844, in which the trial court merely issued the statement that `I think the aggravating circumstances were there, that they did exceed the mitigating circumstances.' (Italics omitted.) We held the statement was insufficiently specific, in failing to indicate which circumstances the trial court considered or deemed relevant or their relative importance. ( Ibid.; People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 550-551, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035.) Defendant overlooks the circumstance that in the present case, the trial court indicated it relied on the circumstances that the crime was cold-blooded, that the victim was slain unnecessarily for a paltry sum of money, that there was no indication the victim was shown any mercy, and that defendant had no other purpose than enriching himself with the money that the victim had displayed earlier. In particular, the trial court properly considered as an aggravating factor the motive of financial gain. ( People v. Riel, supra, 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1223, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969.) The trial court's recitation of those aggravating factors, in combination with the trial court's additional statements that it had considered and weighed the circumstances in aggravation and those in mitigation, sufficiently set forth the trial court's reasons for its refusal to modify the penalty and are adequate to permit appellate review. ( People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th 468, 551, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035 [trial court's omission of other possible mitigating factors from its comments did not render its statement of reasons defective]; People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th 92, 191โ 192, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980 [court was obliged only to provide a ruling adequate `to assure thoughtful and effective appellate review']; People v. Sanders, supra, 11 Cal.4th 475, 566, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420 [trial court's conclusion that `[t]here is absolutely nothing in the record that the court could find to mitigate in that regard' did not mean that it failed to consider all of the evidence presented in mitigation; court expressly stated that it had reviewed all of the aggravating and mitigating evidence]; see People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1219-1220, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130; People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 416-417, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 684, 956 P.2d 1137.) The trial court's statement of reasons was adequate. [15]