X hits on this document





97 / 115

Comparative intercase proportionality review by the trial or appellate courts is not constitutionally required.  (People v. Kipp, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1139; People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 741.)

International law does not compel the elimination of capital punishment in California.  (People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.4th 739, 779.)  

We are not persuaded that we should reconsider our previous rulings on these issues.

Defendant, relying on a dissenting opinion in Jeffers v. Lewis (9th Cir. 1994) 38 F.3d 411, 425-427, contends that the administration of California’s death penalty is impermissibly arbitrary in that, out of the many people sentenced to death, only an unsystematically chosen few have yet been executed.  The federal appellate court has rejected this argument (Woratzeck v. Stewart (9th Cir. 1997) 118 F.3d 648, 652); we do so as well.  “If Woratzeck’s death sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment, then neither does the scheduling of his execution. Arizona must establish some order of execution. There has been no prima facie showing that this scheduling violates the Eighth Amendment.”  (Ibid.)  The same is true here.  Defendant does not face imminent execution and can hardly claim he is being singled out for either quick or slow treatment of his appeal and habeas corpus proceedings.  More generally, defendant makes no showing that the number of condemned prisoners executed in California, or the order in which their execution dates are set, is determined by any invidious means or method, with discriminatory motive or effect, or indeed according to anything other than the pace at which various defendants’ appeals and habeas corpus proceedings are concluded, a matter by no means within the sole control of the state.

XXVIII.  Delay in Hearing Defendant’s Appeal and His Execution After Such Delay

Document info
Document views532
Page views532
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 04:50:33 UTC 2017