Opinion ID: 2508525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: special circumstances/death eligibility issues

Text: Defendant claims that the multiple-murder special circumstance violates his Eighth Amendment rights because it fails to adequately narrow the class of murderers who are eligible for the death penalty. We have rejected this argument. ( People v. Coddington, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 656, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081; see also Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) 484 U.S. 231, 246, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568.) Defendant advances no persuasive reason to reconsider our position.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a separate death sentence upon him for conspiracy to commit murder. As the Attorney General concedes, defendant is correct, and we have held that conspiracy to commit murder is not a death-eligible crime. ( People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 171-172, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461.) As in Lawley, [u]nder our statutory power to modify an unauthorized sentence (see § 1260), we shall direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the appropriate sentence for conspiracy to commit murder, which the Attorney General in this case agrees is imprisonment for 25 years to life.... ( Id. at pp. 171-172, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461, fn. omitted.)