People v. Henderson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080850 · 2022-12-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1201399
Trial judge: William S. Lebov (retired judge)
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:41Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Henderson's petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now 1172.6), finding he was ineligible because the jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences liability. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after a Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now 1172.6) “The court found Henderson was not eligible for relief under former section 1170.95.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not independently review the merits of the trial court's eligibility determination. Instead, it conducted a Wende/Anders review of the record and concluded that no arguable issues for reversal existed, thereby affirming the order without addressing the specific legal basis for the trial court's denial.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and the court's independent duty to review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, as it correctly identifies the procedural posture and the court's independent review obligation. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to address the specific legal argument regarding the interpretation of 'attempted murder' eligibility under section 1172.6, relying solely on the absence of arguable issues identified by counsel.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

On remand after Senate Bill No. 775, the Riverside County Superior Court held a hearing on Henderson's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition and denied it, finding the jury had not been instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences liability (the only reference to those words appeared in CALCRIM No. 3149 on causation for the firearm enhancement). Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Henderson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition on the ground that the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, so Henderson was ineligible for relief as a matter of law “It found the jury was not instructed on felony murder or on liability based on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief for attempted murder requires that the petitioner could have been convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; the record of conviction, including the jury instructions, may establish ineligibility at the prima facie stage. The trial court reviewed the instructions with counsel and found no accomplice-liability theory was given; the stray phrase in CALCRIM No. 3149 concerns causation of injury for the firearm enhancement, not imputed malice. On the facts recited, the denial appears legally correct, though the opinion is too brief to confirm the complete instruction set.
Denial of defense counsel's request for additional time to review the case before ruling on the petition “Whether the trial court erred by denying the petition before giving defense counsel time to review the case, and whether the denial of additional time was prejudicial.”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court treated this as a potential issue flagged under Anders but found nothing arguable after reviewing the whole record. Because ineligibility turned on the absence of natural and probable consequences instructions, which the court reviewed with counsel at the hearing, any denial of further time would not have been prejudicial. The opinion, however, does not describe the request or the court's ruling on it in any detail, so the conclusion rests on the appellate court's unexplained independent review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court reviews the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: the trial court's finding that no felony-murder or natural and probable consequences instruction was given, with the only such phrase appearing in a causation instruction, supports ineligibility under section 1172.6, and the court conducted an independent review beyond what People v. Delgadillo (decided the same day) requires in postconviction Wende appeals. The opinion nonetheless skips any substantive analysis of the identified time-to-review issue and does not cite the governing section 1172.6 authority (e.g., People v. Lewis on use of the record of conviction), leaving the reader to take the no-arguable-issue conclusion on faith.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/19/22 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, D080850

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, William S. Lebov, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Yolo Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, a jury convicted Caleb Marquan Henderson of two counts of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found true an allegation that a principal discharged a firearm causing serious 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)). The jury also convicted Henderson of being an active participant in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The alleged serious felony prior conviction and a strike conviction were found true. Henderson was sentenced to a total term of 50 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of 27 years 8 months. Henderson appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Branch, et.al. (May 8, 2015, D067450).) In 2019, Henderson filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now renumbered 1172.6). The petition was denied by the trial court on the grounds attempted murder was not covered by former section 1170.95. Henderson appealed and this court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill No. 775. This court reconsidered the opinion and reversed the order denying resentencing and remanded for further proceedings. (People v. Henderson (Mar. 4, 2022, D076878).)2 On remand, the trial court held a hearing and then denied the petition. The court reviewed the record with counsel. It found the jury was not instructed on felony murder or on liability based on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. The defense noted that Henderson’s family members had discovered the words natural and probable consequences in the jury instructions. Those words were found in CALCRIM No. 3149 dealing with when an act causes bodily harm. It did not deal with liability for murder based on the acts of an accomplice. The court found Henderson was not eligible for relief under former section 1170.95.

2 Appellant’s request for judicial notice of our records in both prior appeals, is granted. 2 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 this 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. The facts of the current offenses were discussed in our original opinion on direct appeal. We will not repeat them here. 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, of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred by denying the petition before giving defense counsel time to review the case, and whether the denial of additional time was prejudicial. We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Henderson on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Henderson’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12