Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: The Trial Court's Ruling on the Motion for Modification of Defendant's Death Sentence

Text: (62) Defendant challenges the trial court's rejection of his statutory motion to modify the sentence under section 190.4, subdivision (e), arguing the court failed to exercise independent judgment, considered irrelevant factors, and improperly weighed the specified factors in reaching its decision. The record does not support the challenge. In ruling on the motion, the trial court summarized the penalty phase evidence and stated: [T]he sentencing function is inherently a moral and normative one. The sentencing court's power and discretion under the legislative guidelines is to decide the appropriate penalty for the particular offense and offender under all the relative circumstances. The court's remarks reflect the exercise of independent judgment. Similarly, there is no indication that the trial court gave undue emphasis to any of the factors it analyzed. [23] Nor did the court seek to convert the absence of mitigation into aggravation. [24] There was no error in its disposition of the motion to modify sentence. ( People v. Malone, supra, 47 Cal.3d 1, 58; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 632 [247 Cal. Rptr. 573, 754 P.2d 1070].)