People v. Henderson CA4/1 ( 2023 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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?
2 We discussed the facts of the offenses in our prior opinion. We have
granted Henderson’s request to take judicial notice of our records in that
case. We will not repeat the facts here.
2
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Henderson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Henderson’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DATO, J.
3