People v. Crawford CA4/1

Filed 6/17/24 P. v. Crawford CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083926

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB049039) MICHAEL THOMAS CRAWFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino, Colin J. Bilash, Judge. Affirmed. Michael Thomas Crawford, in pro. per; and Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2008, a jury convicted Michael Thomas Crawford of one count of first

degree murder. (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a).) In 2023, Crawford filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 on the ground that he was convicted of murder and “could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

January 1, 2019.” The court appointed counsel for Crawford, received briefing, and held a hearing. Appointed defense counsel conceded Crawford was not eligible for relief. The trial court found that Crawford had not made a prima facie case for resentencing because “[h]e was found to be the shooter,” and “[t]here was no finding, any verdict or otherwise, related to felony murder or any other analysis that would render a different verdict . . . based on the change in the law.” The court denied Crawford’s petition. Crawford filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel subsequently filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating she has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Crawford was notified of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He elected to do so and has raised the following issues: “1) [Is Crawford entitled to resentencing as a youth offender?]