Filed 8/5/26 P. v. Henry CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A175284
v.
ROGER DALE HENRY, JR., (Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No. 25CR07709)
Defendant and Appellant.
Roger Dale Henry, Jr. filed a notice of appeal challenging his sentence,
matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea, and
the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Appellate counsel filed
a brief pursuant to the procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442 (Wende) and notified Henry of his right to file a
supplemental brief identifying the concerns he would like this court to
address. After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no
basis upon which to disturb the judgment, and we therefore affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
An information accused Henry of committing felony offenses for being
in possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health &
Saf. Code § 11370.1, subd. (a)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm
1
(Pen. Code § 29800, subd. (a)(1))1. Five circumstances in aggravation
accompanied the charges. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(2) [armed
during the crime], 4.421(a)(7) [person convicted of other crimes for which
consecutive sentences could have been imposed but for which concurrent
sentences are being imposed], 4.421(b)(2) [prior convictions are numerous or
of increasing seriousness], 4.421(b)(3) [prior prison term served under section
1170, subd. (h)], and 4.421(b)(4) [person on probation when crime
committed].)
Henry filed a motion to suppress evidence contending he had been
illegally detained and searched by police. Two witnesses testified at the
hearing on the motion. Damian Angell, a sworn police officer with the Willits
Police Department, testified he was working on May 19th, 2025. Around 7:36
p.m., while in full uniform and operating a marked patrol vehicle, he was
dispatched to Maple Street after a white male with long hair, a backpack,
and a bicycle was reportedly looking into vacant homes. Upon arrival, Henry
matched the description.
Officer Angell contacted Henry in front of a residence at 410 Maple
Street. The officer parked “out of the way” in a manner that did not block
Henry from leaving down the driveway. The officer did not turn on his
overhead lights or siren. After getting out of the vehicle, Henry began
speaking to the officer. The exchange was recorded on Officer Angell’s body
camera, and the recording was admitted into evidence and played for the
court at the hearing.
Henry initially denied being on probation but quickly admitted he was
on felony probation for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The officer
became concerned that Henry might be armed and directed him to stand by
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
his patrol vehicle. Officer Angell planned to conduct a pat search and told
Henry to hold onto the front of the patrol vehicle. Next, the officer requested
and received information from dispatch about Henry’s probation and warrant
status. Dispatch confirmed Henry had two outstanding warrants: one felony
arrest warrant out of Shasta County and a non-citable misdemeanor warrant
out of Mendocino County. A subsequent search of the backpack discovered a
firearm, a methamphetamine pipe, and a locked container that had
methamphetamine in it. The key to the lock was around Henry’s neck.
Michael Stainbrook, a dispatcher with the Willits Police Department,
confirmed that Henry was on probation and had two outstanding arrest
warrants.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence. It concluded
the encounter had been consensual until Henry, who initially denied being on
probation, volunteered that he was in fact on formal probation for being a
felon with a firearm. Henry was then detained and pat searched. Once
dispatch confirmed the outstanding warrants, the subsequent search of
Henry’s backpack incident to the arrest was not unlawful.
Henry later pleaded no contest to violating section 29800,
subdivision (a)(1). In exchange for his felony plea, the remaining count was
dismissed with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758),
and Henry was promised his sentence would not exceed two years in the state
prison. The change of plea form disclosed Henry’s understanding that he
would not receive a sentence of probation unless “the court finds at the time
of sentencing that this is an unusual case where the interests of justice would
be best served by granting probation.” Henry’s plea also would result in a
finding that he had violated his misdemeanor probation and “any time in that
case would run concurrent.”
3
Henry’s past felony convictions made him presumptively ineligible for
probation. (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4).) The probation department recommended a
sentence of two years in the state prison. The court continued the sentencing
hearing after defense counsel requested more time to challenge that
assessment and argue for a lesser sentence.
At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the views of the parties
and the probation department, denied Henry’s request for probation, and
sentenced him to the low term of 16 months state prison. Probation was
denied after the trial court concluded a new grant of probation would not
serve the interests of justice as Henry had been on “felony probation for the
same conduct, possession of a firearm, when [he] committed this offense” and
had a long record of poor performance under court supervision including 18
violations of probation or parole.
In his misdemeanor probation, Henry received a 45-day sentence that
ran concurrently with the prison commitment. The court terminated
probation as unsuccessful.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel “thoroughly reviewed the entire record” and
determined it was appropriate to file a brief pursuant to Wende. The brief
sets forth the facts of the case, raises no arguable issues for appeal, and
requests that we consider Henry’s supplemental brief, if filed, and
independently review the record for error. Henry did not file a supplemental
brief within the 30-day period he was given to do so. (See Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 [“A copy of counsel's brief should be
furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he
chooses . . .”]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120 [a defendant has the
right to file supplemental contentions in a Wende appeal].)
4
We have conducted the requested review of the entire record. This
review satisfies us that no arguable issues exist and that the procedures
under Wende have been followed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259,
279–284 [approving Wende procedure as affording “adequate and effective
appellate review”]; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
5
_________________________
SMILEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
HUMES, P. J.
_________________________
BANKE, J.
People v. Henry / (A175284)
6
