People v. Hicks CA1/1

Filed 12/29/14 P. v. Hicks CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139903 v. KHARI MARK HICKS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 170215) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Khari Mark Hicks of multiple offenses relating to pimping, including two counts of human trafficking. The trial court found true three prior conviction allegations. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 29 years. On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain one of his convictions for human trafficking. We affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 27, 2013, the Alameda County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with two counts of human trafficking (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (a);1 counts one and five), two counts of pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a); counts two and nine), two counts of pandering (§ 266i, subd. (a)(2); counts three and ten), one count of criminal threats (§ 422; count four), one count of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count six), one count of false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count seven), and one

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count eight). It was further alleged that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the kidnapping charged in count six (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (g)) and that he personally used a firearm to inflict great bodily injury during the commission of the assault charged in count eight (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that he had previously suffered three felony convictions resulting in prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations. On June 28, 2013, the trial court dismissed the enhancement for great bodily injury in count eight. On July 8, 2013, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial on the prior conviction allegations. On July 10, 2013, the parties made opening statements and the prosecutor began submitting evidence. The jury began deliberations late in the afternoon of July 22, 2013. On July 23, 2013, the jury found defendant guilty of all counts. The jury also found the firearm use allegation in count six true. On July 29, 2013, a court trial was held on the prior conviction allegations. The court found all three allegations to be true. On September 23, 2013, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 29 years in state prison, along with imposing various fines. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Contentions on Appeal Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that his conviction for human trafficking in count five must be reversed because it is not supported by substantial evidence. Former section 236.1, subdivision (a), provides: “Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to effect or maintain a felony violation of [specified statutes covering prostitution, child pornography, and extortion],