Opinion ID: 1176537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: modification application

Text: (20) Finally defendant contends that remand for reconsideration of the application for modification of penalty deemed to be made pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 190.4 is required because the trial court misunderstood the factors to be considered and failed to properly consider mitigating evidence. Defendant's claim is based on the trial judge's remark that he considered defendant's age to be an aggravating factor, and what he believes was a literal understanding of factor (k), which permits consideration of any circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. (§ 190.3, factor (k).) Read in context, however, the court's statement regarding defendant's age suggests that the court meant nothing more than rejection of age as a mitigating factor. Nor does the court's statement suggest that the judge did not fully understand his responsibility to consider all evidence offered in mitigation, not simply that related to the circumstances of the crime. Section 190.4, subdivision (e), directs: In ruling on the application, the judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances referred to in Section 190.3, and shall make a determination as to whether the jury's findings and verdicts that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances are contrary to law or the evidence presented. The judge shall state on the record the reasons for his findings. In his statement reciting the statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation, and his findings as to each, the trial judge said: The tenth factor to be considered is the age of the defendant at the time of the crimes. The defendant was born in 1950 and was, at the time of the commission of these offenses, 32 years old. The Court finds this factor to be an aggravating factor since by the age of 33 this defendant, from all of the evidence presented, had reached his full level of maturity. His conduct then, neither cannot nor should not be mitigated because he was neither old enough to fully understand the character and nature of his conduct nor because he was so old as to be considered infirm thereby allowing age to become a factor in mitigation. Nothing elsewhere in the court's statement suggests that the judge believed the absence of a mitigating factor to be aggravating. The statement may reflect nothing more than a belief that defendant's age could not be considered a mitigating factor, but even if the court weighed it as an aggravating factor, the misunderstanding was not prejudicial. That the court understood that conduct unrelated to the circumstances of the offense could and must be considered when offered in mitigation is made clear by the express statement of the judge: The final factor is (k) `Any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crimes even though it is not a legal excuse for the crimes.'  The court has considered all the evidence including that of the defendant's activities as a police informant, and concludes that there are no circumstances which extenuate the gravity of the crimes the defendant has committed. (Italics added.)