Opinion ID: 2521277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Motion for Modification of the Death Verdict

Text: Defendant contends that, as a matter of law, the trial court erred in denying his automatic motion for modification of the death verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), because the court failed to consider properly the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Defendant interprets the court's observation that [t]here has been very little remorse as a finding that defendant had some remorse, which would be a circumstance that must be considered as a mitigating factor. In denying the motion to modify the death verdict, the court stated: There has been very little remorse. In fact, all the evidence pointed to the fact that the main interest the defendant had was in buying the car and trying to learn if he could recover the car after he was taken into custody. It is clear that the import of the court's comments was that defendant exhibited little or no remorse. This conclusion is amply supported by the record. As the trial court recognized, defendant arranged a sham drug deal for the sole purpose of robbing and killing the victims. He shot three individuals, killing two of them, and only hours later used the money he stole to purchase a sports car. The trial court properly concluded that defendant exhibited no appreciable remorse. ( People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 449, 110 Cal. Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78; People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th 130, 187, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150.) Defendant contends the trial court failed to consider the absence of violent criminal activity or felony convictions as mitigating factors. This contention is not supported by the record. The trial court stated: 190.3 [factor] (b) requires that the Court consider the presence or absence of criminal activity of the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to the use of [ sic ] force or violence. There was no evidence on this issue. [¶] 190.3 [factor] (c) The presence or absence of any felony conviction. There was no evidence presented of a prior felony conviction. (Italics added.) The court, therefore, was aware of the absence of evidence of violent criminal activity or of a felony conviction, and also was aware that it was to consider the absence of such evidence as a mitigating factor. We perceive no error. Defendant contends the court erred in observing that defendant was young, but in concluding, I don't think that the age was relevant on this issue. Defendant was 19 years of age at the time of the crime. But his crime was not an immature or spontaneous act. Rather, it was a calculated, carefully planned multiple murder committed for financial gain. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant's age was not a significant factor.