People v. Henderson, 54 Cal.App.5th 612

In March 2015 Henderson fought with Daniel Tillett in an apartment courtyard; a bystander (Aguilar) saw Henderson open his car trunk and walk back holding a semiautomatic handgun.
Henderson returned, struck Tillett with the butt of the gun and with a punch; he swept the gun at two other witnesses (Tiffany and Aguilar). Police later found a semiautomatic handgun in an atrium beneath a bathroom window of a nearby unit.
Prosecutor charged Henderson with two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Tillett and Aguilar), possession of a firearm by a felon, and assault likely to produce great bodily injury; jury convicted on all counts.
Before sentencing Henderson moved for a new trial, attaching Tiffany’s handwritten declaration that she saw only fists (no gun); he argued prior trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call Tiffany. The trial court denied the new-trial motion.
At sentencing the court found prior strike allegations true, struck some priors, and imposed a 27-year term including consecutive doubled terms on the two assault-with-semiauto-firearm convictions. Henderson appealed, raising ineffective-assistance and sentencing-discretion claims under the three-strikes scheme after Proposition 36.

Issue	People’s Argument	Henderson’s Argument	Held
Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by not interviewing/calling Tiffany?	Record does not affirmatively show counsel lacked a rational tactical reason; silence on record defeats per se claim.	Failure to call Tiffany, whose later declaration said she saw only fists, was per se unreasonable and prejudicial.	Reversed? No — affirmed. On direct appeal defendant failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient because the record is silent about counsel’s investigation or tactical reasons; claim better raised via habeas if evidence shows counsel failed to investigate.
Whether trial court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences on multiple current serious/violent felonies after Prop 36 (vs. Hendrix).	Prop 36 amended the three‑strikes provision and requires consecutive sentences for multiple current serious/violent felonies; court lacked discretion to run those serious/violent sentences concurrently.	Hendrix permits concurrent sentences when serious/violent felonies are committed on the same occasion or arise from same operative facts; court retained that discretion post‑Prop 36.	Held for People. Proposition 36’s amendment to the initiative three‑strikes provision eliminated discretion: courts must impose consecutive sentences for multiple current serious or violent felonies, so Hendrix’s same‑occasion concurrency rule no longer applies to those felonies.

People v. Hoyt, 8 Cal.5th 892 (Cal. 2020) (ineffective assistance standard; burden for direct‑appeal claims)
In re Gay, 8 Cal.5th 1059 (Cal. 2020) (counsel’s duty to investigate; mixed question review)
People v. Arredondo, 8 Cal.5th 694 (Cal. 2019) (direct‑appeal reversal only when no rational tactical purpose or counsel offered no reason)
People v. Carrasco, 59 Cal.4th 924 (Cal. 2014) (trial counsel’s witness decisions are tactical and entitled to deference)
People v. Hendrix, 16 Cal.4th 508 (Cal. 1997) (concurrent sentences permitted when multiple serious/violent felonies were committed on same occasion or arose from same operative facts)
People v. Deloza, 18 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1998) (affirming Hendrix principles)
People v. Lawrence, 24 Cal.4th 219 (Cal. 2000) (followed Hendrix/Deloza on application of consecutive sentencing rules)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self‑representation acknowledged in trial proceedings)