Opinion ID: 2525107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 37

Heading: Evidence supporting the death verdict

Text: In reviewing the trial court's decision, we simply review the trial court's determination after independently considering the record; we do not make a de novo determination of penalty. ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 704, 286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.) We find the trial court properly denied the motion to modify the death verdict. The trial court found the circumstances of both murders were aggravated. The court characterized the Castro murder as cold-blooded, absolutely [without] justification, and the result of a planned affair. The court deemed defendant the moving force behind the Navarette murder, the one who caused this entire incident to take place. The court also noted Navarette was an innocent person, not a gang member or anyone who had invited any form of retaliation. The court also found Navarette's brother, Rudolfo Rivera, was endangered by the attack, and had to watch the murder of his brother. The court also discussed the other evidence presented by the People during the penalty phase. The court found particularly horrendous the robbery of Freddie Garcia. Only several hours after murdering Castro, defendant led an attack on Garcia, in which defendant punched, kicked and threatened to shoot his victim. The court further recalled the robbery of Lionel Fricks, defendant's possession of a shank and a makeshift handcuff key, and defendant's involvement in racial violence while incarcerated, although the court found little significance in that latter fact. The court then reviewed the evidence offered in mitigation. The court recalled defendant had been mistreated by children in his neighborhood, and that his sister had been assaulted and hospitalized. The court noted defendant communicated with his sister's children and his own daughter. The court recalled the testimony of Dr. Maloney, who testified defendant had a low-end IQ, but was neither retarded nor psychotic. The court described the testimony of defendant's father, Eduardo Ochoa. The court further noted defendant had only five incident reports while in jail, and two of those were trivial in nature. The court observed defendant did not personally kill Navarette, and it cited the defense's position that defendant did not intend Castro's death. The court concluded its analysis by mentioning each of the statutory mitigating factors listed in section 190.3. The court stated defendant was relatively young (§ 190.3, factor (i)), and was an accomplice (§ 190.3, factor (j)), but that section 190.3, factors (d) through (h) did not apply to mitigate his crimes. The court comprehensively recalled the evidence, and the evidence well supported the decision to deny the motion. (Hart, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 657, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.)