People v. Lewis
Citation | 33 Cal.4th 214,91 P.3d 928,14 Cal.Rptr.3d 566 |
Decision Date | 24 June 2004 |
Docket Number | No. S020670.,S020670. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert LEWIS, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
Robert M. Sanger, Santa Barbara, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey and Margaret E. Maxwell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant of the first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187)1 and robbery (§ 211) of Milton Estell. It found true allegations of deadly weapon use (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and personal use of a firearm (§§ 12022.5, 1203.06) as well as a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(A).) The jury fixed the punishment at death. Although finding no other reversible error, this court vacated the judgment of death because the trial court erroneously considered a probation report in ruling on defendant's automatic application to modify the penalty. (§ 190.4, subd. (e); see People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 286-287, 266 Cal.Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892 (Lewis I).) On remand, the trial court denied the application for modification and reinstated the judgment of death. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen.Code, § 1239.)
We find no error in the trial court's denial of the modification application or any other rulings on remand and affirm the judgment.
Because resolution of the issues raised in this appeal depends solely on the original trial record, we cite to the factual statement set forth in Lewis I, supra, 50 Cal.3d 262, 266 Cal.Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892:
After hearing the penalty phase evidence, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied the automatic application for modification of the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) and imposed sentence.
On appeal, this court found no reversible error except with respect to the ruling on the application for modification:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Mickel
...190.4, the trial court limited its review to evidence actually presented—and it was right to do so. (People v. Lewis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 214, 230, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 566, 91 P.3d 928 [" ‘[T]he court may review only evidence that was presented to the jury’ " in § 190.4, subd. (e) hearing]; People ......
-
Pub. Guardian of Contra Costa Cnty. v. Eric B. (In re Eric B.)
...without review of the challenged governmental action under any level of scrutiny. (See, e.g., 508 P.3d 1117 People v. Lewis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 214, 231, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 566, 91 P.3d 928 ; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856, 150 P.3d 738 ; People v. Salaza......
-
Pub. Guardian of Contra Costa Cnty. v. Eric B. (In re Eric B.)
...analysis, without review of the challenged governmental action under any level of scrutiny. (See, e.g., People v. Lewis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 214, 231, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 566, 91 P.3d 928 ; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856, 150 P.3d 738 ; People v. Salazar (2......
-
People v. Morelos
...(e), as an additional safeguard against arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty in California." ( People v. Lewis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 214, 226, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 566, 91 P.3d 928.)At the conclusion of the penalty phase of Morelos's trial, the trial court detailed its findings as......