CALCRIM No. 220 properly conveys the reasonable doubt standard. In this murder case on appeal, appellant alleged CALCRIM No. 220 misstates the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard by not referring to the conviction of proof beyond a reasonable doubt being deeply “felt.” The court found “appellant’s argument borders on the frivolous.” The instruction conveys the concept of reasonable doubt without ambiguity and without obscuring its scope. The court urged “defense counsel to direct their resources to arguably meritorious grounds of appeal.”