People v. Henderson CA4/1

Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Henderson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081008

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB17002568)

IAN ALEXANDER HENDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Michael A. Knish, Judge. Affirmed. Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Ian Alexander Henderson of attempted

murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a); count 1) and shooting into an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 2). Henderson was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 29 years to life in prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Henderson appealed and this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. (People v. Henderson (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 533.) After resentencing, Henderson’s sentence was reduced to 14 years to life plus five years for a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). In May 2022, Henderson filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court found that as to count 1, Henderson was tried as a direct aider and abettor. The instruction on

natural and probable consequences was applied only to count 2.2 The court found Henderson had not demonstrated a prima facie case for relief and dismissed the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Henderson filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Henderson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the court prejudicially err in finding Henderson was not entitled to relief under section 1172.6?