Opinion ID: 476834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: R. at 33 (App. V), pg. 7. (Emphasis added).

Text: E. Mitigating Circumstances 63 McKenzie claims that the trial court erred by rejecting all the evidence presented concerning mental defect and then finding that no mitigating circumstances existed. He argues that the trial judge did not consider mitigating circumstances to the extent required by the Eighth Amendment and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). 64 However, Eddings merely held that the sentencer may not be precluded from considering any mitigating factor, nor may the sentencer refuse to consider as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence. Id. at 114, 102 S.Ct. at 876. The record shows that the trial judge here was not precluded from considering any mitigating factors nor did he refuse, as a matter of law, to consider relevant mitigating evidence. In fact, the trial judge appears to have properly considered all relevant mitigating evidence 7 and simply rejected it, which was within his power to do. The sentencer, ... may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. Id. at 114-115, 102 S.Ct. at 877. 65 The district court's denial of McKenzie's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 66 AFFIRMED.