People v. Jacaso CA4/1

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo, and Jacaso 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.) Jacaso does not raise any potentially meritorious issues in his supplemental brief, in which he claims that (1) his diminished capacity precluded him from knowingly and voluntarily accepting a plea, (2) the evidence was insufficient to show that he killed his son with implied or express malice, and (3) his youth at the time of the offense constituted a mitigating factor. These arguments are outside the scope of this section 1172.6 petition as they cannot support his claim that he “could not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to Section 188 . . . made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3), italics added.)

2 We nonetheless exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) A generic plea to second…