Is it presumed the court properly exercised its legal duty to consider all possible mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Triggs-Nuñez, C084647 (Cal. App. 2020):
statement by the trial court to the contrary, it is presumed the court properly exercised its legal duty to consider all possible mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence." (People v. Oberreuter (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 884, 888, disapproved on another ground in People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1022.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
Is a defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty? (California, United States of America)
When a trial court properly finds that S.D's vulnerability as an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sentence for perjury, can defense counsel object to the additional factor of suborning perjury? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where the Court considered the "great violence factor" as a factor in determining the appropriate sentence? (California, United States of America)
In a capital crime case, how has the Court considered the sentencing of an accomplice as a factor in determining the upper term sentence? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted age as an aggravating or mitigating factor in sentencing factors? (California, United States of America)
What factors will a court consider in determining the appropriate sentence for a convicted rapist? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 190.3(1) of the California Criminal Code when determining aggravation and mitigation factors in aggravation? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a trial court be required to identify a particular sentencing factor as an aggravating or mitigating factor? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether the absence of a mitigating factor constitutes an aggravating factor? (California, United States of America)
Does section 8.85 of the California Criminal Code, which instructed the jury to consider whether or not certain mitigating factors were present, unconstitutionally suggest that the absence of such factors amounted to aggravation? (California, United States of America)
