Further, this Court has recognized that due to the finality of the death penalty, a court has a heightened duty to ensure the reliability of a capital verdict. See, e.g., People v. Hernandez, 30 Cal. 4th.835, 877 (2003) (holding that “numerous and serious” errors at the penalty phase of defendant’s trial, considered together, affected the jury’s penalty determination and required penalty phase reversal); People v. Holt, 37 Cal. 3d 436, 459 (1984) (setting aside defendant’s convictions after finding that it was reasonably probable that in the absence of the cumulative effect of the trial errors, the jury would have reached a more favorable result); People vy. Easley, 34 Cal. 3d 858, 863 (1983) (noting that in capital cases, the provisions of California Penal Code section 1239(b) “impose a duty upon this [C]ourt to make an examination of the complete record of the proceedings to the end that it be ascertained whether defendant was given a fair trial.”) (internal punctuation omitted); see also People v. Kronemeyer, 189 Cal. App. 3d 314, 349 (1987) (noting that the cumulative error analysis “always applies,” because the “litmus test is whether defendant received due process anda fair trial.”). A cumulative assessment of the errors presented in the Corrected AmendedPetition and on appeal lead to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. 701 Benavides was denied a fair trial and was wrongfully convicted.

As this Court has recognized, in death penalty cases, Penal Code section 1239, subdivision (b), “imposes a duty upon this court to make an examination of the complete record ofthe proceedings ... to the end thatit be ascertained whether defendant was given fair trial.” People v. Easley, 34 Cal. 3d 858, 863 (1983) (emphasis in original, internal quotations omitted) (quoting People v. Stanworth, 71 Cal. 2d 820, 833 (1969), and citing People v. Bob, 29 Cal. 2d 321, 328 (1946), People v. Perry, 14 Cal. 2d 387, 392 (1939), People v. Figueroa, 160 Cal. 80, 81 (1911)); Cal. Penal Code § 1239(b) (West 2010). .

Furthermore, capital defendants are provided by the State of California many benefits that non-capital defendants are not provided, including, but not limited to, appointed counsel (Cal. Pen Code § 1509(b); Cal. Gov. Code § 68662), an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court. (Cal. Pen. Code § 1239(b)), more money to pay postconviction counsel and for pre-petition investigation than other states provide (see In re Reno, 55 Cal. Ath at 456-57), and more pages in a habeas corpuspetition (see id.). These differences from non-capital defendantsare sufficient to providea rational basis for the voters to determine that capital defendants should be subject to Proposition 66’s proceduralrules relating to habeas corpuspetitions.

59. California Penal Code Section 1239. Section 1239 was enacted when a defendant was executed while his appeal wasstill pending, due to confusion whether he had filed a notice of appeal. See Alarcon, Remedies for California's Death Row Deadiock, supran.2 at 714-15 . 60. Delays in the certification of the record bythetrial court have been substantially reduced by the 1996 enactmentof California Penal Code Section 190.8 (d), which requires the trial court to certify the record for completeness and for incorporation of all corrections nolater than 90 days after imposition of a death sentence, unless good causeis shown, Certification of the accuracy of the record, however, must await the appointmentof appellate counsel.

This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd.(b).) STATEMENT OF FACTS THE PROSECUTION A. The Mexican Mafia ~ There were four main prison gangs divided by ethnic background.

N e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e S S ” APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa HONORABLEPETERL. SPINETTA, JUDGE A. RICHARD ELLIS Attorney at Law CA State Bar No. 64051 75 Magee Ave. Mill Valley, California 94941 Telephone: (415) 389-6771 Fax: (415) 389-0251 Attorney for Appellant IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) $104144 Plaintiff and Respondent, ) Automatic Appeal ) (Capital case) Vv. ) ) ) Contra Costa Co. ) Superior Court JOSEPH ANDREW PEREZ,JR, ) No. 990453-3 ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ) APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death made directly to this Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 1239.' STATEMENTOF THE CASE This case arises from a homicide that occurred on March 24, 1998 in Lafayette, California, in which the victim Janet Daher was killed in the course of an alleged residential burglary.

(7 CT 2185-2189.) Mr. Rountree's appeal is automatic under section 1239. STATEMENT OF FACTS In December 1993, Mary Elizabeth Stroder and her boyfriend, appellant Charles·Rountree, were living with Mary Elizabeth's father, 5 Daniel Stroder, in his home in Whitewater, Missouri. (13 RT 2485.

(18RT 4606-4608, 4610-46111; 39CT 11309-11323, 11324-11335, 11346, 11348, 11372-11374.) STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This is an automatic appeal from a verdict and judgment of death. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen. Code, § 1239. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS A. The Guilt/Innocence Phase 1. The Prosecution Case. a. The Homicides.

(E.g., Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; §§ 190.1-190.9, 1239, subd. (b).) (People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 456, quoting People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 44.) Avila gives this Court no reason to reconsider its previous holdings. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, respondent respectfully requests that the judgmentbe affirmed inits entirety.

The judge shall set forth the reasonsfor his ruling on the application and direct that they be entered on the Clerk’s minutes. The denial of the modification of the death penalty verdict pursuant to subdivision (7) of Section 1181 shall be 110 reviewed on the defendant’s automatic appeal pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1239. ... In ruling on the application for modification of the verdict, “thetrial court reweighs the evidence, considers the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and determines whether, in its independent judgment, the weightof the evidence supports the jury’s verdict. (People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1139.)