PEOPLE OF MI V VAN JENKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 30, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 202100
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 95-071877 FH
VAN JENKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right his conviction of habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12;
MSA 28.1084, entered after a jury trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In People v Jenkins, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October
11, 1996 (No. 187857), we affirmed defendant’s conviction of inmate in possession of a weapon,
MCL 800.283(4); MSA 28.1623(4), but vacated his habitual offender conviction on the ground that he
was entitled to a jury trial on the charge.
Before defendant’s jury trial on the supplemental charge, defense counsel requested that
defendant’s handcuffs be removed. The trial court directed that defendant’s handcuffs be removed but
that his leg shackles remain in place. Defense counsel did not object. The jury found defendant guilty
as charged. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced defendant to three to fifteen years in prison.
Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial because he was forced to appear before the
jury in shackles. We disagree. Freedom from shackles is a significant component of the right to a fair
trial. People v Williams, 173 Mich App 312, 314; 433 NW2d 356 (1988). A defendant should be
restrained only to prevent escape, to prevent injury to others, or to maintain order in the courtroom.
People v Dunn, 446 Mich 409, 426 & n 26; 521 NW2d 255 (1994). We review a decision to
restrain a defendant for an abuse of discretion under the totality of the circumstances. People v Dixon,
217 Mich App 400, 404-405; 552 NW2d 663 (1996). To justify reversal of a conviction on the basis
-1
of being shackled, a defendant must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the action. People v
Robinson, 172 Mich App 650, 654; 432 NW2d 390 (1988).
Here, defendant has failed to show that he was actually prejudiced. Defense counsel did not
object to the trial court’s decision to leave the leg shackles in place. The failure to object militates
against a finding of prejudice. Robinson, supra. Any error resulting from the trial court’s failure to find
that shackles were necessary for an acceptable reason, Dunn, supra, is rendered harmless by the lack
of evidence that the jury observed the shackles. People v Johnson, 160 Mich App 490, 493; 408
NW2d 485 (1987). Under the totality of the circumstances, no abuse of discretion occurred.
We affirm.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
