Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preservation of Issue and Standard of Review

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his automatic application for modification of the judgment because it (1) speculated he had planned the crime, and (2) refused to consider sympathetic factors in mitigation. He has forfeited the first issue because he failed to make a contemporaneous objection on this ground at trial. The contemporaneous objection rule applied at defendant's modification hearing, held on November 22, 1993. ( People v. Riel, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1220, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969 [the rule requiring an objection applies to cases in which the modification hearing was held 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].) Defendant contends that an objection would have been futile because he had argued in his new trial motion, heard immediately before the modification hearing, that there was no evidence he had planned Powell's murder. We disagree because defendant did not clearly argue absence of planning even in the new trial motion. Moreover, denial of a new trial motion does not mean this objection at the modification hearing would have been futile. We do, however, believe that defendant's argument the modification hearing regarding use of sympathetic factors was sufficient to preserve that claim. The entire contention lacks merit. In ruling on an automatic application for modification of the verdict under section 190.4, subdivision (e), the trial judge shall review the evidence, consider, take into account, and be guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances ... 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 trial court's ruling must be based only on the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 648, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 17, 995 P.2d 152.) [T]he trial judge's function is not to make an independent and de novo penalty determination, but rather to independently reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then to determine whether, in the judge's independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. [Citations.] ( People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1045, 264 Cal.Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627.) The trial judge must provide a ruling `adequate to assure thoughtful and effective appellate review.' ( People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 191, 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) On appeal, we subject a ruling on a verdict-modification application to independent review. ( People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 689, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705.) Of course, when we conduct such scrutiny, we simply review the trial court's determination after independently considering the record; we do not make a de novo determination of penalty. ( People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 704, 286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.)