Opinion
B326724
11-21-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND BOYKINS, Defendant and Appellant.
Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BA189367, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed.
Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILEY, J.
Raymond Boykins appeals the trial court's denial of his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Boykins filed a supplemental brief. Pursuant to Delgadillo, we must evaluate the arguments he raised in his brief and issue a written opinion. (Id. at p. 232.) We affirm.
Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
In his supplemental brief, Boykins says the record of conviction does not preclude relief as a matter of law because a jury could have found him guilty "on a theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in a crime." According to Boykins, this is because the evidence did not show he was the shooter. He argues the prosecution's identification evidence was flawed.
To address this contention, we summarize Boykins's case. In 2001, a jury found him guilty of attempted murder of Dashon Jackson. (§§ 664 &187, subd. (a).) It also found true that "the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation."
The main issue at trial was identity: the prosecution presented identification evidence that Boykins was the one who shot at Jackson. Boykins contested this evidence.
The court did not instruct the jury about the natural and probable consequences theory of aiding and abetting. Boykins has not shown the prosecution presented or argued an aiding and abetting theory.
The jury found the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. There were no jury instructions or arguments on natural and probable consequences. Boykins was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
This case is unlike People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, where the court did instruct the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Id. at p. 593.) It is also unlike People v. Ramirez (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 923, 926, which involved a felony murder conviction.
We grant Boykins's request for judicial notice of the record in his direct appeal. We deny his request for judicial notice of the record in a federal case involving different defendants. Boykins has not provided this federal record, nor has he demonstrated its relevance to his section 1176.2 petition.
We decline a request by Boykins's appellate counsel to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) The record of conviction demonstrates Boykins is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Nothing before us suggests an exercise of independent review is necessary.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GRIMES, Acting P. J. VIRAMONTES, J.