Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alleged Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failure to Clarify the Relationship Between Factors (d) and (k)

Text: Defendant contends defense counsel was ineffective for failing to clarify for the jury in closing argument that evidence of defendant's mental disturbance that could be characterized as less than extreme (see § 190.3, factor (d)) could still be considered mitigating under section 190.3, factor (k) (which the jury was told was factor (j); see fn. 28, ante ). Factor (k) provides that the jury may consider [a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. Counsel discussed the fact of defendant's mental problems at length during her closing argument and, although she did not specifically refer to section 190.3, factor (k), we assume the jury followed the instructions permitting it to consider defendant's mental problems under factor (k). (See People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 256, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) In any event, it does not appear reasonably probable the result of the penalty phase would have been different had defense counsel, during her discussion of defendant's mental problems, referenced factor (k) specifically in addition to arguing such evidence was mitigating under section 190.3, factors (d) and (h).