People v. Crawford CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from orders
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1101501, RIF150644
- Trial judge
- Samuel Diaz, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Crawford's petitions for resentencing under Penal Code sections 1170.91 and 1172.1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo, finding no potentially meritorious issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petitions for resentencing under Penal Code sections 1170.91 and 1172.1“Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Crawford’s request for resentencing under sections 1170.91 and 1172.1.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court stated it exercised its discretion to independently review the record for error but did not explicitly apply the abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's ruling, nor did it analyze the merits of the resentencing denial. It simply concluded that no potentially meritorious issues were identified. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Mandates the process for independent review of the record when appointed appellate counsel files a brief stating no meritorious issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and requesting the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Delgadillo/Anders protocol for independent review. However, it is substantively thin as it fails to address the specific legal argument raised by the appellant regarding the reduction of felony convictions to misdemeanors due to a suspended sentence, merely stating that no meritorious issues were found without analysis.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court appointed counsel, held a hearing, and denied Darryl Crawford's 2024 petitions for resentencing under Penal Code sections 1170.91 and 1172.1 on his 2010 and 2011 convictions carrying an aggregate 29-years-to-life term. On consolidated appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issues brief, Crawford filed a supplemental brief arguing his earlier release on a suspended sentence reduced his assault convictions to misdemeanors, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguably meritorious issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Crawford's petitions for resentencing under Penal Code sections 1170.91 and 1172.1“The court appointed counsel, held a hearing and ultimately denied the petitions.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The opinion follows the Delgadillo procedure: counsel identified abuse of discretion in denying resentencing as the only possible issue, the court independently reviewed the record, and found nothing arguable. The opinion recites no facts about Crawford's eligibility under section 1170.91 (military service and service-related trauma) or the basis for the section 1172.1 request, and it does not address whether a defendant-initiated section 1172.1 petition produces an appealable order at all. Nothing in the opinion shows legal error, but the stated reasoning is too thin to verify the result independently. |
Rejection of Crawford's supplemental-brief claim that his release on a suspended sentence reduced the assault with a deadly weapon convictions to misdemeanors“He believes that release had the effect of reducing the assault convictions to misdemeanors. On the record presented in this appeal, Crawford has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 245(a)(1) is a wobbler, but a wobbler becomes a misdemeanor only by a judgment imposing punishment other than state prison or by a court's express declaration under section 17(b); the opinion states the trial court suspended execution of the sentence, which leaves the felony judgment intact. The court's conclusion that this argument is not arguable is consistent with that framework, although the opinion does not cite section 17 or explain why the argument fails. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from a postconviction order where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must notify the defendant, consider any supplemental brief, and may in its discretion independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155 — Addresses appealability of orders denying recall of sentence under former section 1170(d); a defendant has no right to initiate a recall petition himself, so the appealability of an order denying a defendant-initiated section 1172.1 request is a threshold question the court did not discuss.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Delgadillo framework, considers the supplemental brief, and reaches a defensible affirmance where the only argument raised (automatic misdemeanor reduction upon release on a suspended sentence) lacks legal footing. It skips any explanation of why that argument fails under section 17(b), says nothing about the substantive requirements of sections 1170.91 and 1172.1, and does not address whether the denial of a defendant-initiated section 1172.1 request is an appealable order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 12/11/25 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, D085321, D085322
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. RIF1101501, RIF150644) DARRYL PIERRE CRAWFORD, Defendant and Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Darryl Pierre Crawford, in pro. per.; and Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This consolidated appeal involves the denial of petitions for resentencing, and it is subject to the process mandated by People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. In June 2010, after a retrial, Crawford was convicted of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of criminal threat (§ 422) in Superior Court case No. RIF150644. The court suspended execution of the sentence and released Crawford from custody. But he was later taken into custody. In 2011, in Superior Court case No. RIF1101501, Crawford was convicted of several felonies including two counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664) and personally using a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court later recalled the sentence and held a new sentencing hearing at which it sentenced Crawford in both superior court cases. It sentenced Crawford to an aggregate term of 29 years to life in prison. In 2024, Crawford filed petitions for resentencing under sections 1170.91 and 1172.1. The court appointed counsel, held a hearing and ultimately denied the petitions. Crawford filed timely notices of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise the discretion granted by Delgadillo to independently review the record for error. We advised Crawford of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Crawford has filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed Crawford’s supplemental brief. He challenges his sentence for two counts of assault with a deadly weapon that was imposed in 2011. Crawford notes he was released at one point on a suspended sentence. He believes that release had the effect of reducing the assault convictions to 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 misdemeanors. On the record presented in this appeal, Crawford has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Crawford’s request for resentencing under sections 1170.91 and 1172.1. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error. Our review has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Crawford on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The orders denying Crawford’s petitions for resentencing are affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
DO, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19