People v. Henderson CA4/1

Filed 3/4/22 P. v. Henderson CA4/1 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076878 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1201399) CALEB MARQUAN HENDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Nancy Olsen, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Meredith S. White and Robin Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On July 10, 2019, Henderson filed a petition under Penal Code1 section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch.1015) (Senate Bill 1437) to have two attempted murder convictions vacated. The superior court concluded Henderson was ineligible for relief because his convictions are not for felony murder. Henderson appealed, contending section 1170.95 applied to his convictions for attempted murder. We affirmed the denial of the petition, relying on a body of case law that held section 1170.95 and Senate Bill 1437 did not apply to cases such as Henderson’s. (People v. Henderson (Nov. 13, 2020, D076878) [nonpub. opn.].) Henderson petitioned for review, and the Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case to this court to reconsider in light of the newly enacted Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775), which became effective January 1, 2022. Having now reconsidered the case, we will reverse the order denying the petition for resentencing and remand the matter to the superior court with directions to hold proceedings consistent with section 1170.95, subdivision (c). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of the underlying matter are not relevant to the legal issue before us. They can be found in Henderson’s direct appeal, People v. Daquan