People v. Henson CA3

Filed 11/26/25 P. v. Henson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101483

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF-20- 01212-01, CRF-19-01962, WILLIAM JOSEPH HENSON, CRF-19-01963)

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2017, a jury convicted defendant William Joseph Henson of attempted vehicle theft. The trial court placed him on probation for five years. In 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to child endangerment, and the trial court again placed defendant on probation for five years. Defendant subsequently pleaded no contest to second degree murder and assault with a firearm, and admitted that the murder violated the terms of his probation.

1

Under the plea agreement, sentences in the attempted vehicle theft case and child endangerment case would run concurrent to the murder case. Consistent with the plea agreement, in 2021 the trial court terminated probation and sentenced defendant in the various cases to an aggregate 15 years to life in prison, including concurrent upper term sentences for assault with a firearm and attempted vehicle theft. This court remanded for resentencing in light of changes in the law (People v. Henson (Dec. 15, 2022, C093776) [nonpub. opn.] (Henson)), and on remand the trial court reimposed the same sentence. Defendant now contends (1) that based on a change in the law, his probation in the attempted vehicle theft case terminated by operation of law after two years, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to subsequently terminate probation and impose a prison sentence; (2) the trial court failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory limitations applicable to the imposition of upper term sentences; and (3) the abstract of judgment must be updated to reflect resentencing. Finding merit in defendant’s contentions, we will reverse the trial court’s order terminating defendant’s probation in the attempted vehicle theft case and direct the trial court to enter an order terminating that probation nunc pro tunc as of December 15, 2019. We will also vacate the sentence imposed by the trial court on June 10, 2024, and remand the matter for a resentencing hearing. Amendment and/or correction of the abstract of judgment can be addressed by the trial court on remand. BACKGROUND In 2017, a jury convicted defendant of attempted theft of a Jeep Cherokee (Pen. Code,1 § 664, Veh. Code, § 10851) in Sacramento County case No. 16FE010015. The trial court suspended defendant’s sentence and placed him on probation for five years