Opinion ID: 2631133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Automatic Application for Modification of the Judgment

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred when, in denying his automatic application for modification of the death judgment (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), it did not independently review the evidence, thus depriving him of a reliable penalty determination and of due process of law under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant, however, failed to make this assertion when the trial court ruled on the motion, and therefore he forfeited this issue. (See People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1220, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969 [the contemporaneous objection rule applies to cases in which the modification hearing was conducted after this court's decision in People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 1013, 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984, became final].) [12] In any event, defendant's claim is without merit. Under section 190.4, subdivision (e), a capital defendant is deemed to have automatically applied for a sentence modification. In ruling on the application, the trial judge must independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and determine whether, in the judge's independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. ( People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 477, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.) Here, in denying the automatic application for modification, the trial court stated, in relevant part: [T]he circumstances of the present crime were substantially aggravating based on defendant's having intentionally shot and killed two people. The court further explained that the circumstances of the crime were sufficient to outweigh defendant's evidence and that based upon its independent review [of the evidence], the court does not disagree with the jury decision. (Italics added.) There was no error.