Opinion ID: 1180863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Ruling on the Modification Motion

Text: (95) Amicus curiae claims that the court, in ruling on defendant's automatic motion for modification of the judgment (former § 190.4, subd. (e)), improperly viewed the absence of mitigating factors as a factor in aggravation. Our review of the record discloses the court acknowledged that certain potentially mitigating factors were absent, but did not explicitly state that such absence was to be, or would be, considered in aggravation. Indeed, the court listed abundant grounds for imposing the death penalty, detailing the nature and circumstances of the crimes. (96) Amicus curiae also claims the court erroneously failed to consider nonextreme mental and emotional disturbance as mitigating evidence. Our review of the record, however, discloses that the court merely stated it found no evidence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the offenses. The court was free (as was the jury) to consider under former factor (j) any evidence of defendant's nonextreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of offenses, or to consider the presence of such disturbance generally. The fact that the court failed to find sufficient mitigation to outweigh the aggravating factors does not mean that the court failed to consider all of defendant's mitigating evidence. Viewing the court's comments as a whole, we find no error.