Opinion ID: 2567349
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Asserted unconstitutionality of method of execution

Text: Defendant observes that the method of execution prescribed by the 1990 judgment in this case, the administration of lethal gas, has been held to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. ( Fierro v. Gomez (9th Cir.1996) 77 F.3d 301, 309, vacated for reconsideration in light of statutory amendment (1996) 519 U.S. 918, 117 S.Ct. 285, 136 L.Ed.2d 204.) He contends his sentence should be reduced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole because the 1992 amendment to section 3604 to permit execution by lethal injection as an alternative to lethal gas (Stats.1992, ch. 558, § 2, p. 2075) would constitute an unconstitutional ex post facto law or bill of attainder as applied to him. We have previously rejected the same contention, reasoning the amendment did not increase or make more burdensome in any way a condemned prisoner's punishment. ( People v. Snow, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 127-128, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749.) We see no reason to depart from that holding. For the same reason, defendant's claim that execution by lethal injection would place him a second time in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments lacks merit. Defendant further argues that execution by lethal injection itself violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. As he acknowledges, we have held to the contrary ( People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 864, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2), and defendant advances no persuasive reason to reconsider that conclusion.