People v. Crawford CA4/1

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo, and Crawford has elected to file his own supplemental brief. Although we are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief,” we are not “compel[led to conduct] an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) As an initial matter, Crawford raises an argument regarding his youth offender status. However, Crawford’s notice of appeal is limited to the order denying his section 1172.6 petition. The record does not reflect whether the trial court has ruled on Crawford’s separate request for a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. Any such ruling is not before us at this time. With respect to Crawford’s section 1172.6 petition, the record establishes, as a matter of law, that he was not convicted “under a theory of

3 felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or another theory of imputed malice.” (People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 987.) Crawford was convicted of a sole count of first degree murder, and the jury found true that he “personally…