From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jenkins

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 25, 2012
H037068 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2012)

Opinion

H037068 H037793

01-25-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD CHARLES JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant. In re EDWARD CHARLES JENKINS, on Habeas Corpus.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. C1079849, C1092392)

Defendant Edward Charles Jenkins, a registered sex offender, was convicted by a jury of two counts of failing to register within five days of moving into a new residence (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (b)) and one count of failure to inform law enforcement of a new address (§ 290, subd. (b)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true the allegations that Jenkins had prior strike convictions for burglary, robbery, two counts of forcible sodomy and two counts of forcible oral copulation. At sentencing, the trial court granted Jenkins' Romero motion in part, striking five of Jenkins' six strikes, and sentenced him to a total term of seven years and four months.

Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

We appointed counsel to represent Jenkins in this court. Counsel has filed a brief stating the case and the facts, but raising no specific issues. We notified Jenkins of his right to submit written argument in his behalf within 30 days, and he has filed a brief raising claims of instructional error, error in the conduct of his Romero hearing and his "probation hearing," ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Jenkins has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we have ordered considered with the appeal. In this writ petition Jenkins raises the following claims, which are duplicative of the claims raised in his written brief: (1) the trial court committed instructional error; (2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and (3) his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. We deny the petition.

I. DISCUSSION

We summarize the testimony and evidence presented at Jenkins' trial.

Jenkins was at a homeless shelter when he met his girlfriend, Jennifer Garcia. After Garcia obtained a Section 8 housing voucher, Jenkins helped her move in to an apartment located at 460 South Fourth Street in San Jose. Garcia said Jenkins was merely a frequent visitor at her apartment, coming over at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. and leaving around 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. to go to the Salvation Army or look for work. He would only sleep for two or three hours because "he knew he didn't live there." Jenkins did not have keys to the apartment, he did not pay utilities and he was not listed on the rental contracts. Garcia admitted that she was not permitted to live with a registered sex offender as a Section 8 voucher recipient. She allowed Jenkins to use her apartment as a storage unit and to receive his mail. He also sometimes cooked for her and shopped for groceries. Though she denied that he lived with her, Garcia said other people believed he did because of the many police calls to the premises.

The Section 8 housing program is funded by the federal government and provides rental assistance to low-income, elderly and disabled families. It was added to the United States Housing Act of 1937 when Congress enacted Title II of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Pub L. No. 93-383, § 201(a), 88 Stat. 633, 662-666 (1974) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1437f)).
--------

A neighbor, Mary Williams, said she believed that Jenkins had moved in with Garcia because she had seen him move his belongings into the apartment and she saw him at the apartment complex both day and night. Williams often heard Jenkins arguing loudly with Garcia and heard him refer to Garcia's apartment as his residence. She also saw him drinking 40-ounce beers at the apartment daily and he often appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.

San Jose Police Officer Lee Lawrence responded to a late-night call at 460 South Fourth Street and contacted Jenkins, who appeared intoxicated, and was standing in front of the building. Jenkins admitted he had been drinking and was drunk, so Lawrence took him into custody for public intoxication.

On May 24, 2010, Jenkins helped Garcia move to a new apartment located at 520 South Willard Street in San Jose. Jenkins did not have keys to this apartment, was not listed on the rental contracts and did not pay utilities. However, photographs of the apartment's interior showed Jenkins' clothing, shoes, toiletries and business records.

San Jose Police Officer Keith Aldinger responded to a call at 520 South Willard Street on May 29, 2010, at about 10:00 p.m. and found Jenkins and Garcia arguing. Jenkins appeared to be "extremely intoxicated" and was yelling that "[s]ome fucking . . . white bitch knocked on my door and asked for cigarettes." On May 31, 2010, Aldinger responded to another call to 520 South Willard Street, and again found Jenkins to be loud, agitated and extremely intoxicated. Aldinger arrested Jenkins for disturbing the peace and public intoxication.

Jenkins advised Aldinger he was a sex offender registered as a transient. Based on the multiple calls, Aldinger suspected Jenkins was residing with Garcia and spoke to the neighbors, who said they believed Jenkins was living at the apartment.

Diana Ortega, who also lived at the apartments at 520 South Willard Street, said Jenkins drank and was disrespectful toward the other tenants at the complex. He only left the premises to "go get the alcohol." Another neighbor, Andrew Hunt, said he saw Jenkins at the premises "[p]retty much every day . . . day and night." Hunt only heard Jenkins describe the apartment as "his lady's apartment," though Hunt believed Jenkins was sleeping there since his personal belongings were in the apartment.

A neighbor at 518 South Willard Street, Jolene Rieken, said Jenkins was at the complex daily and cooked a meal for her and her children at Garcia's apartment on one occasion. Jenkins and Garcia would frequently have loud arguments, even in the middle of the night, and she saw him every morning at the apartment. Jenkins said that the apartment was his, as was everything inside it, and that Garcia would have "nothing without him."

Francis Gallegos, an analyst from the San Jose Police Department's sex offender registration unit, confirmed that the registration form requires those claiming a residential address to provide proof of residence, whereas transients are to state the areas they frequent. Proof of residence could include mail from the county, state or federal government to a particular address, or a California driver's license, California state identification, recent utility bills, etc. Gallegos confirmed that Jenkins registered at residential addresses as required until April 3, 2009, and from that date on he registered as a transient. Jenkins never registered as a resident at either 460 South Fourth Street or 520 South Willard Street.

We have read and considered the arguments raised by Jenkins in his letter brief and in his accompanying petition for writ of habeas corpus, which are, as follows: (1) the trial court committed instructional error; (2) there was error in the conduct of his Romero hearing and his "probation hearings"; (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways; and (4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be supported by adequate documentation. (See People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [habeas corpus petition must state fully and with particularity the facts on which relief is sought as well as include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence supporting the claim].) Jenkins fails to provide any documents which support his claims of instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel.

II. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

______________________

Premo, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________

Elia, J.

______________________

Mihara, J.


Summaries of

People v. Jenkins

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 25, 2012
H037068 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Jenkins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD CHARLES JENKINS, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 25, 2012

Citations

H037068 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2012)