People v. Henderson CA5

Filed 5/13/25 P. v. Henderson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087902 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62288) v.

DANIEL JESS HENDERSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Kellee C. Westbrook, Judge. Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez, and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J., and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION In 1998, a jury convicted Daniel Jess Henderson (appellant) of carjacking and other offenses. The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life plus 12 years in state prison. The sentence included four 1-year prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)),1 three of which were ordered stayed. In 2023, appellant was recalled for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3) (Senate Bill 483) because his judgment included now invalid prior prison term enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) At resentencing, the trial court struck the enhancements but denied appellant’s requests to dismiss other enhancements and findings. The court resentenced appellant to 25 years to life plus 11 years in state prison. On appeal, the parties agree the trial court failed to recalculate appellant’s custody credits at resentencing and specify the updated total in the amended abstract of judgment. The parties also agree appellant’s restitution fine must be stricken pursuant to recently enacted section 1465.9, subdivision (d). We agree with the parties, and we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the above errors. In all other respects, we affirm. BACKGROUND We need not discuss the facts underlying appellant’s conviction because they are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal.2 In 1998, a jury convicted appellant of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and found true two enhancements for the use