Opinion ID: 2623595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Denial of Coffman's Motion for New Trial

Text: Coffman's motion for a new trial relied on many of the contentions advanced in this appeal, including the trial court's denial of defendants' severance motions, the denial of the motions to change venue, the denial of her motion to suppress her postarrest statements taken in violation of Miranda and the testimony of Robin Long, and insufficiency of the evidence to support the burglary and sodomy special-circumstance findings, in addition to others not renewed here. The trial court denied the motion, commenting it was convinced that any jury anywhere would have convicted Coffman and returned a death verdict. Coffman contends the trial court should have granted the motion or otherwise stricken the special circumstance findings or exercised its power to reduce her sentence to life imprisonment. We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. ( People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 526, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182.) As to the grounds that Coffman has renewed in the course of this appeal, we have concluded none merits reversal of the judgment. Coffman thus fails to establish a manifest and unmistakable abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial on those grounds. (See People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312, 328, 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 529, 851 P.2d 811.) As to the grounds she chose not to renew before this court, she fails to show that the trial court made any error of law rendering the denial of the motion for a new trial an abuse of discretion. Nor does Coffman articulate a basis on which the trial court should have stricken the special circumstance findings or reduced her sentence to life imprisonment.