People v. Caravella

[933]

Opinion

HERNDON, Acting, P. J.

Defendant appeals from the judgment (order granting probation) entered following a nonjury trial that resulted in his conviction for pandering in violation of Penal Code section 266i. He contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) that evidence of certain recorded telephone conversations was improperly introduced against him. We have concluded that these contentions are unmeritorious.

Appellant operated a “photography studio” at 7400 Santa Monica Boulevard where persons desiring so to do could photograph nude girls. One of his “models” testified that appellant solicited her to engage in acts of prostitution. She ultimately agreed and between November 1967 and March 1968, she participated in approximately 25 acts of prostitution arranged by appellant. She would meet the men at appellant’s studio and thereafter go to a motel where she would receive money for engaging in acts of sexual intercourse.

In March of 1968, the model and her husband, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department, recorded their telephone conversations with appellant. Transcriptions of these tapes were received in evidence and effectively corroborated the model’s testimony in that appellant acknowledged arranging “20 or 25 tricks” for her although he asserted that he had done so merely to help her out and had made no money on the transactions.

The evidence is abundantly sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction. It is immaterial to a charge of pandering “ ‘whether the female “procured” is an innocent girl or a hardened prostitute of long experience; nor is it material that the procurement was either at her request or upon the defendant’s own initiative.’ ”

(People

v.

Martin,

228 Cal.App.2d 677, 680 [39 Cal.Rptr. 669].) Similarly, it is immaterial whether or not appellant received compensation for his services or whether or not the actual acts of prostitution were consummated upon premises owned by appellant. (Cf.

People

v.