Skip to main content

THE PEOPLE v. JERHAUN HOOKFIN

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JERHAUN D. HOOKFIN, Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B216869

Decided: July 26, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Jerhaun D. Hookfin appeals his conviction by jury of misdemeanor vandalism.   (Pen.Code, § 594, subd. (a).) 1  The trial court sentenced appellant to 180 days jail with credit for time served and ordered appellant to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b), a $20 court security assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $50 criminal conviction assessment (Gov.Code, § 70373).

In June 2008, appellant was charged with stalking (§ 646.9. subd. (a)), making criminal threats (§ 422), and felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)).  It was further alleged that appellant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds.(a)-(d);  667, subds. (b)-(i)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

At trial, evidence was received that appellant made threatening phone calls to Marisha Arps after she ended her relationship with appellant.   On March 1, 2008, appellant called and said that he was on his way over to her house.   About 30 minutes later, Arps heard someone break the garage windows.   Appellant called a few minutes later and said, “I wonder how much it's going to cost to fix those windows.”

Earlier that day, appellant told Arps' father that he wanted to “whup” Arps.

On March 9, 2008, Arps came home and saw that two or three garage windows were broken and that someone had written “AIDS” on the garage door and the front door.   Arps' name was written or carved on the front door.   In prior phone conversations, appellant accused Arps of infecting him with AIDS.

The jury returned not guilty verdicts on the stalking and criminal threats counts, and found appellant guilty of misdemeanor vandalism.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.   After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues.

On June 8, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal.   We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443;  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

Rita L. Swenor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated..  FN1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

COFFEE, J. PERREN, J. Antonio Barreto, Jr., Judge

Copied to clipboard