P. v. Jenkins
Filed 2/8/07 P. v. Jenkins CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SLEVEN JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant. | B183874 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA248481) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Sam Ohta, Samuel Mayerson and Rand S. Rubin, Judges. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and A. Scott Hayward, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Appellant Sleven Jenkins[1] appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of count 4, receiving stolen property, in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a).[2] Appellant also appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a mistrial and retrial on count 1, conspiracy to commit a bank robbery in violation of section 182, subdivision (a)(1) and section 211. We affirm.
CONTENTIONS
Appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict with respect to count 1; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict with respect to count 4; (4) the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's application to be sentenced as a second strike offender, or in the alternative, the imposition of the term of 25 years to life plus six years, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The first trial
Appellant was charged with count 1, conspiracy to commit robbery (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211); count 2, attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211); count 3, grand theft auto (§ 487, subd. (d)(1)); and count 4, receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The trial commenced on February 24, 2004.
Alice Torres (Torres) testified that on June 3, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., she noticed four young Black men drive up in a maroon Honda and park, blocking a nearby driveway. Two Black men in a white car without license plates pulled up behind the Honda. The driver of the white car, a tall, older man, got out to speak to the men in the Honda. The men in the Honda then leftthe Honda and drove off with the menin the white car. Believing that something was wrong, Torres walked to the car and examined the Honda. She noticed that the ignition was missing and concluded that the car had been stolen. Back at her house, she saw the men return in the white car and park across the street from the Honda. All the men left the white car and carriedtwo â€
