People v. Henry CA1/1

Filed 3/27/25 P. v. Henry CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170490

v. (Alameda County BOBBY HENRY, Super. Ct. No. 611302) Defendant and Appellant.

After Bobby Henry pleaded guilty to murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) pursuant to a negotiated agreement, he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. In this appeal, Henry challenges the superior court order denying his section 1172.6 resentencing petition for Henry’s failure to make a prima facie case for relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) Specifically, Henry argues the court erred by relying on the reporter’s transcript of Henry’s preliminary hearing in making that prima facie determination. Guided by our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Patton (Mar. 3, 2025, S279670) __ Cal.5th __ [2025 Cal. Lexis 1165; 2025 WL 666005] (Patton), we disagree and affirm the order accordingly.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND The resentencing petition was a preprinted form on which Henry checked boxes alleging that he met the requirements of former section 1170.95,2 subdivision (a) and requesting the appointment of counsel. Upon receiving the petition, the superior court appointed counsel for Henry and sought the prosecutor’s response. The prosecutor’s first response averred that Henry had made the requisite prima facie showing under section 1172.6, subdivision (c). But in a later, supplemental response, the prosecutor withdrew that concession in light of People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158 (Mares), review granted May 1, 2024, S284232 (rejecting a defendant’s contention that the superior court erred in relying on a preliminary hearing transcript in the prima facie stage of § 1172.6 proceedings). According to the supplemental response, the prosecutor had proceeded at the preliminary hearing on a theory that Henry “was the actual killer through testimony of live witnesses and video evidence,” and no evidence undercut that theory. Moreover, the supplemental response noted that Henry’s counsel at the preliminary hearing had argued that Henry should only “be held to answer . . . for voluntary manslaughter,” along with Henry’s stipulation to preliminary hearing evidence for the factual basis of his guilty plea. In his reply, Henry took “the position that he ha[d] met the very low standard for making a prima facie showing,” arguing (inter alia) that the prosecution’s supplemental reply had failed to support its actual-killer contentions with any “specific citations to the record of conviction.” In turn, the prosecutor filed a second supplemental response, citing Henry’s