People v. Henson CA3, C096757

Defendant Marcus Henson and others fired ~26 shots at an unmarked police car with two Stockton officers inside; two rounds struck the bumper and no officers were injured.
Indictment charged multiple counts including attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and gang enhancement; multiple firearm enhancements were alleged.
At trial the jury was instructed that attempted murder required intent to kill and on the "kill zone" theory; the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences (NPC) doctrine; defendant was convicted and originally sentenced to a lengthy term.
On direct appeal this court reversed and vacated several convictions/instructions, and on remand defendant was resentenced to 15 years to life plus a 20-year firearm enhancement on one attempted murder count; other sentences were stayed.
Defendant filed a Penal Code section 1172.6 petition claiming his remaining attempted murder conviction rested on NPC liability; the prosecution and trial court relied on the trial record showing a kill‑zone instruction (requiring intent), not NPC.
The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage; defendant appealed, counsel filed a brief saying there were no arguable issues, defendant filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is eligible for resentencing under §1172.6 given the trial record	The jury was instructed on intent/kill‑zone (not NPC); the record shows attempted murder required intent, so §1172.6 relief is unavailable	The attempted murder conviction rested on NPC liability and thus qualifies for §1172.6 relief	Denial affirmed — record shows kill‑zone instruction and no NPC instruction, so defendant is ineligible
Whether Wende/Anders procedures control this appeal from a postconviction §1172.6 denial	Postconviction appeals are governed by Delgadillo framework; counsel must file a brief and court must notify defendant of right to file; the appellate court may independently review	Defendant implicitly argued for Wende protections (by implication of counsel’s Wende‑style brief)	Wende/Anders do not apply to §1172.6 postconviction appeals; court followed Delgadillo and exercised its discretion to independently review and affirm

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (Supreme Court decision on appointed counsel procedure when finding no arguable issues)
People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (framework for appellate counsel filing no‑issue brief on direct appeal)
People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal.5th 216 (Cal. 2022) (governs procedure for appeals from postconviction §1172.6 denials and requires counsel brief plus notice; permits independent review)
People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (appellate court may independently review the record when counsel files a Wende‑type brief in a §1172.6 appeal)