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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL THOMAS CRAWFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D083926

 (Super. Ct. No. FSB049039)

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. 
2

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?] 

“2) Does [Crawford’s] petition in conjunction with the record of 

conviction establish that [he] made [a] prima facie showing that 

he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 so that 

the [trial] court was required to issue an order to show cause and 

hold evidentiary hearing? 

“3) Has [Crawford] made a prima facie showing that he is 

entitled to relief under section 1172.6 because his jury was 

instructed with CALCRIM No. 520, which [sic] the following: 

“The defendant acted with implied malice if: 1. He 

intentionally committed an act; 2. The natural and 

probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human 

life; 3. At the time he acted he [k]new his act was 

dangerous to human life; AND 4. He deliberately acted 

with conscious disregard for human life[”]?
3

“4) In determining [Crawford’s] eligibility for resentencing, was 

the [trial] court’s erroneous consideration of the unpublished 

opinion in [Crawford’s] prior direct appeal prejudicial so that it 

requires reversal of the court’s order denying [his] petition for 

resentencing. 

“5) Does the record of conviction establish that [Crawford] is 

ineligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 as a 

matter of law where it reflects the following: the jury was not 

instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine, and the jury found true the allegation 

that in the commission of the murder [Crawford] personally and 

intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused 

great bodily injury and death?”

We have reviewed the issues raised by Crawford and relevant portions 

of the record of conviction, and we agree with counsel that there are no 

potentially meritorious arguments for appeal. We therefore affirm. 

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 
4

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 and intentionally 

discharged a firearm, a handgun, which proximately caused great bodily 

injury and death” to the victim. The jury was not given any instructions 

concerning felony murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or 

any other theory of imputed malice. 

Crawford notes an implied malice instruction given to the jury that 

references “natural and probable consequences.” However, this instruction 

states, in relevant part: 

“The defendant acted with implied malice if: 

“1. He intentionally committed an act; 

“2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to 

human life; 

“3. At the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to 

human life; 

“AND 

“4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human 

life. 

“. . . 

“An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and 

probable consequence of the act and the death would not have 

happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is 

one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if 

nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence 

is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances 

established by the evidence.” 
5

To find that Crawford acted with implied malice, the jury had to find that he

“deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.” This instruction 

“did not allow implied malice to be imputed solely from the natural 

consequences of [his] act.” (People v. Carr (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 136, 145.) 

Crawford also argues the trial court erred by considering our prior, 

unpublished opinion affirming his conviction. (People v. Crawford (Oct. 6, 

2009, D054954 [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court may properly rely on the 

record of conviction, and “[a]ppellate opinions . . . are generally considered to 

be part of” that record. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970–972.) In 

any event, we have reviewed Crawford’s eligibility for section 1172.6 relief 

independently. (See People v. Williams (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1244, 1251.) 

Even without considering the prior appellate opinion, the record clearly 

demonstrates that Crawford is not entitled to relief.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Crawford’s petition for resentencing under 

section 1172.6 is affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

KELETY, J.