Opinion ID: 2637623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Erroneous Denial of Motion for Reduction of Penalty

Text: Defendant contends the trial court, in ruling on his automatic motion to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), improperly considered certain factors in aggravation. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not have to `employ the same type of analysis the jury would have done [ sic ] under the instructions.' ( People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 245, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365). Thus, the court's consideration of defendant's willful possession of jail-made weapons while he was in custody was proper under section 190.3, factor (b). Likewise, the court's reliance on the random selection of the victims and evidence indicating defendant's intent that all of the victims should die was proper under section 190.3, factor (a). (See People v. Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 177, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357.) Finally, the court's comprehensive statement of the reasons for its ruling demonstrates that the court fulfilled its statutory duty by independently [reweighing] the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and ... determin[ing] whether, in its independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supported] the jury's verdict. ( People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 150, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.)