Opinion ID: 2567349
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Delay in appellate process and execution of sentence

Text: Observing that the judgment in this case was entered in 1990, appellate counsel was appointed in 1993, and further delay has occurred in the process of briefing and adjudicating this appeal, defendant contends these circumstances support a presumption of excessive delay in violation of his right to due process of law and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Defendant also asserts that if he receives inferior treatment because of his indigence than a person who could afford counsel would have received, he has been denied equal protection of the laws. In support, he relies on Harris v. Champion (10th Cir.1994) 15 F.3d 1538. We previously have distinguished that case, in which the federal court of appeals held that a two-year delay in disposing of noncapital criminal appeals is presumptively excessive, as [not] address[ing] the unique demands of appellate representation in capital cases. ( People v. Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th 619, 709, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213.) [D]efendant fails to demonstrate that the delay inherent in the procedures by which California recruits, screens, and appoints attorneys to represent capital defendants on appeal, is not necessary to ensure that competent representation is available for indigent capital appellants. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, although defendant complains that long delay renders a retrial more difficult and complicated, he fails to suggest any impact that the delay could have on the validity of the judgment rendered before that delay occurred. ( Ibid. ) Finally, defendant argues that the long delay between the imposition and execution of the death sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He acknowledges we have previously rejected this contention ( People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 606, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347; People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 574, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29), but asks us to reconsider our view. For the reasons stated in our earlier decisions, we decline to do so.