Opinion ID: 2613958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Refusal to Instruct Regarding Sentence Received by Cynthia Ontiveros

Text: Defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that in determining the appropriate punishment for the defendant in this case, you may consider the sentence received by Cynthia Ontiveros in return for her testimony. If you find that the imposition of death against Mr. Rodrigues is disproportionate in comparison to the sentence received by Cynthia Ontiveros you must return a verdict of life without possibility of parole. [87] (65) He contends that the court's refusal to do so constituted error and rendered the death judgment constitutionally defective. We disagree. As defendant recognizes, we have repeatedly rejected the contention that capital juries must be instructed during the penalty phase to consider the sentences imposed on a defendant's accomplices. ( People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 718; People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 201 [276 Cal. Rptr. 679, 802 P.2d 169]; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1249 [255 Cal. Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047].) The focus in a penalty phase trial of a capital case is on the character and record of the individual offender. The individually negotiated disposition of an accomplice is not constitutionally relevant to defendant's penalty determination. ( People v. Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1249.) Defendant asks us to reconsider our position in light of Parker v. Dugger (1991) 498 U.S. 308 [112 L.Ed.2d 812, 111 S.Ct. 731], a case in which a capital defendant in Florida was permitted to introduce, at an advisory sentencing hearing, evidence that none of his accomplices had received the death penalty. (498 U.S. at p. 314 [112 L.Ed.2d at pp. 821-822].) According to defendant, Parker v. Dugger, supra , and various federal cases preceding it, are dispositive of his claim that the jury was improperly precluded from considering accomplice Ontiveros's sentence. In People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408 [6 Cal. Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388], we reviewed the decision in Parker v. Dugger, supra , and determined it did not suggest that California was constitutionally required to adopt the Florida rule allowing consideration of the sentences of accomplices at the penalty phase. (2 Cal.4th at pp. 479-480 [rejecting claim that evidence of codefendant's sentence must be admitted]; see also People v. Belmontes, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 810-813.) We adhere to our reasoning in People v. Mincey, supra , in concluding that defendant's requested instruction was properly denied. We have reviewed all of defendant's arguments on this issue and have determined that none supports reversal of his death sentence.