California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Landry, 2 Cal.5th 52, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 160, 385 P.3d 327 (Cal. 2016):
Although defendant frames his claim as a failure of the trial court to consider his mitigating evidence, his claim, in essence, is that the trial court failed to give sufficient weight to evidence of duress and his mental health issues. His contention does not reflect a valid appellate challenge to the trial court's decision. (See People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 530, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 161 P.3d 58 [The fact that the trial court "did not find defendant's proffered mitigating evidence as persuasive as he would have liked does not undermine" the conclusion that the court properly conducted an independent reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating evidence].)
[2 Cal.5th 125]
Accordingly, even were the claim not forfeited by defendant's failure to object, we would affirm the trial court's ruling.
Contrary to defendant's assertion, "California's death penalty law does not violate international law and norms or evolving standards of decency." (People v. Cage, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 297, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 724, 362 P.3d 376.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.