People v. Jenkins

• Decision Date: 12 October 2021
• Docket Number: G059110
• Citation: 70 Cal.App.5th 175,285 Cal.Rptr.3d 225
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tyrus Romealus JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

70 Cal.App.5th 175

285 Cal.Rptr.3d 225

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Tyrus Romealus JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant.

G059110

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

Filed October 12, 2021

Edward Mahler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Britton B. Lacy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

O'LEARY, P. J.

A jury convicted Tyrus Romealus Jenkins of first-degree burglary of a residence with a person present, second degree burglary of a car, attempted unlawful taking of the car, and misdemeanor possession of burglary tools. The court imposed a total prison sentence of 13 years. Jenkins contends his conviction for attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle must be reversed because the court permitted, over his objection, a police detective to testify to the car's estimated value obtained from the Kelley Blue Book's Web site. Jenkins asserts this was hearsay evidence that should have been excluded, and absent this testimony, there was no evidence establishing the car was worth more than $950, an element of the felony offense. We conclude the trial court properly admitted the evidence under Evidence Code section 1340, the published compilation exception to the hearsay rule.¹ Jenkins also contends his conviction for vehicular burglary must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove the car was locked at the time of his entry. We conclude there was substantial circumstantial evidence establishing this element of the crime. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS

I. Substantive Facts

Husband and Wife were home around 7:30 a.m., when the alarm sounded on their 2010 Nissan Sentra parked in their driveway.

About the same time, they were alerted to movement outside their home through a smartphone application connected to a security camera mounted above their garage. Wife looked outside and saw Jenkins standing between their two cars. She told Husband what she saw and that it appeared Jenkins went into their garage. Husband grabbed a piece of wood and went outside to confront him.

He found Jenkins searching through the refrigerator in the garage. Husband banged his wooden stick on the ground to get Jenkins's attention and told Jenkins to leave. Jenkins was carrying a backpack, and Husband noticed a hammer sticking partially out of it. Jenkins shoved the hammer into his backpack and walked out of the garage. Although Husband did not see Jenkins take anything from the garage, he later realized a plastic container with coins was missing.

As Jenkins was walking toward the street, Husband noticed the driver's side window of their Nissan Sentra was shattered. There were also indications the driver's door had been pried away from the frame of the car. Both the glove compartment and the center console of the car were open, and it appeared someone had rummaged through the car. A piece of the ignition was broken off. Husband called the police and gave them Jenkins's description.

Shortly thereafter, Jenkins was stopped by the police nearby. When the police searched his backpack, they found a hammer, screwdriver, and pliers. Inside his backpack, Jenkins also had an iPod and a garage door remote taken from inside the Nissan, as well as two plastic containers with coins. In an in-field show-up, Husband identified Jenkins as the man he saw in his garage.

Jenkins was arrested and taken to the police station, where Detective Kenneth Johnson interviewed him. In the interview, Jenkins admitted using the hammer to break the car's window and pry the door. He explained he was looking for money because he was hungry, and he found some change inside the car. He admitted he tried to start the car by using the claw end of the hammer to pry the ignition and probably would have taken the car if he had been able to start it. He used the garage door opener he found inside the car to open the garage door. He said he went into the garage and took water and soda from the refrigerator because he was hungry and dehydrated.

Johnson examined the damage to the Nissan. He later used the Kelley Blue Book's Web site to determine the value of a base model 2010 Nissan Sentra because he did not know what amenities Husband and Wife's car had. He obtained the trade-in value of the car, which is the lowest value provided by the Kelley Blue Book, and it was $1,800 to $2,240.

II. Procedural Facts

An information charged Jenkins with residential burglary ( Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a), count 1); vehicle burglary ( Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b), count 2); attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle ( Pen. Code, § 664, subd. (a) ; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 3); and misdemeanor possession of burglary tools ( Pen. Code, § 466, count 4). The information alleged as to count 1 that a nonaccomplice was present in the residence at the time of the burglary. ( Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) The information further alleged Jenkins was previously convicted of burglary and the prior offense qualified as a "strike" under the "Three Strikes" law ( Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1) ) and a serious felony ( Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1) ). The jury trial proceedings on the substantive charges were bifurcated from the trial on the prior conviction allegations.

During the trial on the substantive charges, the court conducted a section 402 hearing regarding Johnson's anticipated testimony that he obtained the value of the car from the Kelley Blue Book. The court ruled the evidence admissible under section 1340, over Jenkins's objections.² At trial, the prosecution offered the evidence detailed above. Jenkins presented no testimony in his defense but submitted a stipulation by the parties concerning the weather and temperature on the day of the incident.

The jury found Jenkins guilty of the charged offenses and found true the allegation that a nonaccomplice was present in the residence during the burglary. Jenkins waived his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction allegations, and the court found the allegations true following a bench trial.

The court sentenced Jenkins to prison for a total term of 13 years, consisting of eight years for residential burglary (midterm doubled due to Jenkins's prior strike offense) and a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. It imposed a concurrent four-year term for Jenkins's conviction for vehicle burglary (midterm doubled), imposed a concurrent two-year term for attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle (midterm doubled), and stayed the sentence for possession of burglary tools under section 654. Jenkins timely appealed.³

DISCUSSION

I. The Court Properly Admitted Evidence of the Car's Value from the Kelley Blue Book

Jenkins's conviction for felony attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle (count 3) required proof the vehicle was worth more than $950. ( People v. Jackson (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 371, 378, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 79.) The prosecution's evidence concerning the car's value came from Johnson, who testified he used the Kelley Blue Book's Web site to determine the car's trade-in value was $1,800 to $2,240. Jenkins contends his conviction must be reversed because Johnson's testimony concerning the Kelley Blue Book's valuation of the car was inadmissible hearsay that did not qualify for admission under the published compilation exception in section 1340, and absent this inadmissible evidence, there was no other evidence the car's value exceeded $950. We disagree. We conclude the testimony concerning the Kelley Blue Book's valuation of the car was properly admitted under section 1340.

A. Background

Prior to opening statements, the prosecutor informed the court he "wanted to iron out" an issue before Johnson testified as the prosecutor intended to prove the value of the car through the detective's testimony. The prosecutor explained Johnson's testimony would be he determined the car's value by using the Kelley Blue Book, and the prosecutor argued this evidence was admissible under section 1340. Defense counsel objected to the testimony on hearsay and foundation grounds. The court deferred the issue to allow itself and the defense time to research the prosecution's case law.

When the court took the matter up later, defense counsel supplemented his initial objection with objections based on Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 and People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320. Defense counsel argued the car's estimated value from the Kelley Blue Book was not admissible under section 1340 because it was "an opinion of what an average price would be for a particular make and model of a vehicle" and not a directory or list of vehicle prices. The prosecutor argued the information from the Kelley Blue Book was not an opinion but a tabulation of sales that have occurred for similarly priced vehicles. The court indicated a section 402 hearing would be needed for the prosecution to try to lay the necessary foundation for admission of the evidence under section 1340.

At the evidentiary hearing, Johnson testified he was a detective in the police department's auto theft and burglary unit and that he used the Kelley Blue Book as part of his job and relied on it when determining a vehicle's value. In his work experience, he had used the Kelley Blue Book at least 25 times to determine a vehicle's value and had used it in his personal life additional times. He had spoken to many car dealers who indicated they also used the Kelley Blue Book for determining vehicle trade-in values. Johnson described the Kelley Blue Book as "a recognized nationwide database that consumer and retail personnel use to gauge the estimate for values of a vehicle," and he explained how a user obtains a car's...