Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Jason Marshall

January 27, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JASON MARSHALL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 08F08735)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye, P. J.

P. v. Marshall

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Jason Marshall was found guilty by a jury of failing to register as a sex offender when he failed to inform authorities that he was residing at a house on Lemitar Way. (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b).)*fn1 He contends his conviction should be reversed because the statutory definition of "residence" is unconstitutionally vague. He further contends that the trial court "defused" the residency requirement by instructing the jury that he was required to register whenever changing or establishing a new or temporary residence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defendant, a convicted sex offender, had been registering as a "transient" on a monthly basis from July to October 2008. Defendant wrote that he was "homeless" and, on each occasion, he initialed the condition that stated: "If I have more than one residence address at which I regularly reside (regardless of the number of days or nights I spend at each address), I must register all of the addresses with the law enforcement agency or agencies having jurisdiction over these residences."

On October 7, 2008, Detective Kevin Patton received information from a probation officer that defendant might not be homeless or transient, but might be living at an address in the north area of the city. Two weeks later, as part of a surveillance operation, Patton and other officers followed defendant to Lemitar Way. When the officers knocked on the door of the house on the corner of Lemitar Way and Pebblewood Drive, defendant came to the door. The officers handcuffed defendant.

Patton then spoke to the homeowner, Ida Trujillo, about defendant's presence in the home. She said that defendant "stay[ed]" there and would sometimes sleep on the couch, and at other times, he slept in the garage where her 46-year-old son lived. Defendant was a friend of her son and had stayed overnight in the house four nights a week for the past four months. Defendant ate and took showers at the house, and gave her approximately $65 a week in food stamps when he did his laundry there. Trujillo recanted at trial, stating defendant spent one night a week in the garage and did not eat or shower there.

James Vinson lived on Pebblewood Drive, around the corner from Trujillo's house. He testified that he saw defendant near or around the Trujillo residence six to seven days a week for many months prior to defendant's arrest. During any one-week period in October 2008, Vinson estimated he saw defendant standing outside the Trujillo house on seven or eight occasions--often twice in one day. Sometimes it was in the morning, more often in the afternoon, and most often in the evening.

Robert Tanner also lived on Pebblewood Drive. He testified he often saw defendant outside or around the Trujillo house, and often working on a truck in the driveway. He first noticed defendant in the neighborhood in February 2008. Since that time, he saw defendant, usually in the Trujillo driveway, almost every day. He saw defendant there at various times throughout the day, including weekends, and often saw him go into the Trujillo house or garage. He presumed defendant lived there.

Defendant did not testify.

The jury was instructed with the elements of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.