People v. Murphy CA2/1

Filed 5/30/14 P. v. Murphy CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B248101

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA071313) v.

ONZA MURPHY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________________

Onza Murphy was convicted of two counts of pandering (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(2)),1 one count of criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and one count of battery (§ 243, subd. (a)). On appeal he contends insufficient evidence supports his pandering conviction, and his third strike sentence of 25-years-to-life for criminal threats is unauthorized under section 1170.12. We affirm. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2012, appellant grabbed 18-year-old S.V. by her arm when she was walking up her apartment building stairs. He held her arm, so she could not break free, told her she was his “bitch,” and said she had to “work” for him on Lankershim, meaning Lankershim Avenue in Los Angeles. Appellant then put his hand inside S.V.’s shirt and touched her breast. Appellant said he knew which apartment she lived in and stated if she did not work for him he would kill her. After S.V. reported the incident to the police, Los Angeles Police Officer Tara Munjekovich of the Vice Unit initiated an undercover operation. Munjekovich arranged a meeting with appellant at which she told appellant she had been working as a prostitute and heard she could make “good money” on Lankershim. Appellant told her she could make about a thousand dollars a night “working” on Lankershim, and offered to “set her up.” When she asked how much money she could keep, he told her he did not let his “girls” keep any money, so she would have to give him all the cash she made. When she asked about competition from other girls, appellant told Munjekovich he “ran the show” and would “take care of everything.” He also said if he were her “daddy” he would take care of all her needs, pay her bills, and pay for her to get her hair and nails done. Appellant then asked Munjekovich to go out and make $400 that night as an “entrance fee” for his “services,” which he said would prove her loyalty to him. He assured her she “could easily make that” because she was “a White girl.” He instructed her to go buy some condoms and call him once she made the money so he could collect it. Appellant was arrested at the scene and taken into custody.