California Court of Appeal Apr 20, 2016 No. D068560Unpublished
Filed 4/20/16 P. v. Ramirez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D068560
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD260678)
ALBERTO RAMIREZ, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia
Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Andrew
Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Alberto Ramirez, Jr., guilty of one count of pimping (Pen. Code,
§ 266h, subd. (a)),1 and the trial court sentenced Ramirez to three years in prison.
Ramirez contends (1) the court erred in not sua sponte giving a unanimity instruction; and
(2) insufficient evidence supports the verdict. We conclude that Ramirez's arguments
lack merit, and accordingly we affirm the judgment.
Here, ample independent evidence connected Ramirez with the crime of pimping,
and thus provided sufficient corroborating evidence to allow the jury to consider
Jimenez's testimony that Ramirez received $500 from pimping when deciding Ramirez's
guilt. Specifically, completely independent of Jimenez's testimony, the jury heard
evidence (1) that Ramirez was recorded while in the patrol car saying "I'm a pimp" and
expressing concern about whether the police would "find the money"; (2) Ramirez sent
text messages to Ashley instructing her to bring him the money after every client, stating
that they "are going halves," and also instructing her what services to provide to a client;
and (3) Ramirez admitted to Detective Dominguez that he had been a pimp for Ashley for
two weeks and that he had at least received food and lodging from the prostitution
proceeds.
This evidence is more than sufficient to constitute " 'independent evidence which,
without aid or assistance from the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the
defendant with the crime charged' " (Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1128), and thus
Jimenez's testimony about the $500 could properly be relied upon as substantial evidence
to support a finding that Ramirez received money from Ashley's prostitution.
Moreover, even without Jimenez's testimony that Ramirez received $500 from his
pimping activities, the evidence sufficiently supports a pimping conviction against
Ramirez based on Ramirez's own admissions. Specifically, the crime of pimping does
9
not require the receipt of money by the defendant, but instead requires only that the
defendant "lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings
or proceeds of the person's prostitution." (§ 266h, subd. (a), italics added.) Here,
Ramirez admitted that Ashley had been using her earnings from prostitution to buy food
for him and pay for him to stay at the hotel. That evidence supports a pimping conviction
because it shows that Ramirez derived support or maintenance in whole or in part from
the proceeds of Ashley's prostitution.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court was not required to provide a unanimity instruction because pimping is a continuous course of conduct offense, and that sufficient evidence, including the defendant's own admissions, supported the conviction.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred by failing to provide a sua sponte unanimity instruction to the jury.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the pimping conviction, including the corroboration of accomplice testimony.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because pimping has "been held to be [a] crime[] of a continuous ongoing nature" it is "therefore not subject to the requirement the jury must agree on the specific act or acts constituting the offense."”