Does a summary denial of a pretrial petition for extraordinary relief prevent a defendant from appealing against his conviction and sentence to death for a violent crime committed while he was still a minor?

^3. With respect to this and other claims on appeal, defendant argues that the asserted error also violated various of his constitutional rights. Before trial, the court agreed that any objection by defendant would be deemed to include an objection on federal and state constitutional grounds. The constitutional claims do not invoke facts or legal standards different from those defendant asked the trial court to apply but merely assert that the alleged errors were also constitutional violations. Because we find no error, we necessarily also find no constitutional violation. Accordingly, we provide no separate constitutional discussion. (See People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 441, fn. 17, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677, 133 P.3d 581.)

^4. A summary denial of a pretrial petition for extraordinary relief does not establish law of the case precluding consideration of the issue on appeal following final judgment. ( Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 891, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728, 838 P.2d 250.) Accordingly, the denial of the pretrial petition does not affect our resolution of this issue on appeal.

^5. In some circumstances, the prosecution may, on a defendant's appeal, obtain review of adverse rulings in order to secure affirmance of the judgment. (See People v. Braeseke (1979) 25 Cal.3d 691, 701, 159 Cal.Rptr. 684, 602 P.2d 384.) But those circumstances are exceptions to the general rule.

^6. The fact that defendant had pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property and that the robbery charges were dismissed does not preclude the prosecution from proving the robbery at the penalty phase. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1157, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.)

^7. We do conduct intracase proportionality review to determine whether a sentence of death is disproportionate to the defendant's personal culpability. Defendant does not request such review, but it would not aid him. Already a veteran of violent criminal conduct, the 29yearold defendant was clearly the leader, not a follower, in this crime. He involved a group of youths in the crime and induced the juvenile A.J. to participate. He and A.J. robbed, hog-tied, and murdered an elderly married couple in their own home. The death sentence is not disproportionate to defendant's personal culpability, and it does not shock the conscience. ( People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 800, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531, 171 P.3d 548.)