Opinion ID: 2590272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Denial of automatic motion to modify the penalty verdict

Text: After the jury returned a verdict of death, defendant moved for a new penalty trial, and, alternatively, for modification of the penalty verdict under section 190.4. He contended he did not receive a fair trial because of the improper admission of the redacted statements of his codefendants at the joint trial on the issue of guilt, and because of the trial court's refusal to give defendant's requested special instructions regarding aggravating factors. Defendant also asserted that a sentence of death was unfair because the codefendants blamed him for the underlying crimes, minimizing their own role, when in actuality it was the codefendants who urged and instigated defendant to shoot the victim. The trial court denied both motions. Defendant now contends the trial court erred because it failed to consider the lesser sentences imposed upon his codefendants, who he continues to allege are more culpable than he in the murder. Codefendant Burnett was found guilty of murder along with defendant and was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Codefendant Rembert was not convicted of the murder until after appellant was sentenced to death (see fn. 2, ante ). Defendant did not present a proportionality argument to the trial court in his motion or at the hearing on the motion, and he therefore forfeited this issue. (See People v. Riel, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1220 [the contemporaneous objection rule applies to cases in which the modification hearing was conducted after this court's decision in People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 1013 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984]].) In any event, defendant's claim is without merit. Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to consider all applicable facts regarding defendant's involvement in the murdermost notably, that he is assertedly less culpable for the murder than his codefendants. [21] Defendant is unable to point to any evidence in the record, howeveroutside his own statement to the policeto support his claim, and our own examination of the record reveals that the trial court considered all of the available evidence in arriving at its decision to deny defendant's motion for new trial, or in the alternative to set aside the verdict of death. First, the trial court specifically found that the defendant did not commit murder while acting under extreme duress, or in fact, any duress at all, which indicates the court considered and rejected defendant's contention at trial that he killed Kondrath because of threats or compulsion exerted by his codefendants. Moreover, contrary to defendant's assertion on appeal, there is no evidence in the record to support his claim that his codefendants were more culpable than he in the murder. Defendant willingly left the apartment with Burnett and Rembert, intending to assault Ron Hussar and to steal his stereo. Defendant actively participated in the carjacking involving the murder victim. Defendant drove the victim's automobile, with the victim in the trunk, to Jeffrey Howard's residence to obtain a shotgun, then to a rival gang's territory in search of rival gang members, and finally, to the residence of Cynthia Melson, where codefendants fired more shots. Finally, and most notably, it was defendant, not either of his codefendants, who shot and killed the victim even though the victim was pleading for his life. Although defendant asserts throughout his briefing that his codefendants were more culpable than he because he shot the victim at their urging, this assertion does not supersede the evidence in the record establishing defendant's primary role in the victim's murder. Under these circumstances, the trial court carefully and properly performed its duty under section 190.4. No error under state law or federal constitutional law appears.