People v. Stringer CA6

Filed 9/15/20 P. v. Stringer CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H045540 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS151402)

v.

JERRY NICKENS STRINGER, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jerry Nickens Stringer, Jr., drove two 17-year-old girls from Sacramento to Monterey County where they engaged in prostitution. He also took sexually explicit photographs of the girls and posted the photos on a website to advertise their prostitution services. A jury convicted defendant of, among other things, trafficking the minors for a sex act; possessing child pornography; and producing child pornography for a commercial purpose. Defendant argues that Penal Code section 654 precludes punishment for both possession and production of child pornography because the convictions arose from an indivisible course of conduct. We conclude that defendant’s Penal Code section 654 argument is without merit. We agree with the parties, however, that the judgment must be reversed and the matter remanded for the limited purpose of dismissing one of two child pornography possession counts and resentencing defendant on the remaining counts.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS The operative information charged defendant with two counts of trafficking a minor for a sex act (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)(1); counts 1 and 2; unspecified references are to this Code); two counts of pandering a minor over age 16 (§ 266i, subd. (b)(1); counts 3 and 4); two counts of possessing child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a); counts 5 and 6); one count of producing child pornography for a commercial purpose (§ 311.4, subd. (b); count 7); two counts of sexually exploiting a minor (§ 311.3, subd. (a); misdemeanors; counts 8 and 9); and unlawful sexual intercourse (§ 261.5, subd. (c); count 10). The information also alleged defendant had one prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (b)–(i)). A. JURY TRIAL TESTIMONY The two victims were referred to as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 at trial. Both were 17 years old at the time of the events in June 2015. They were best friends and were living at Jane Doe No. 1’s father’s house in Sacramento. Jane Doe No. 1 testified that they wanted to travel to Monterey for a few days to visit Jane Doe No. 2’s family. Jane Doe No. 2 asked a different friend to arrange a ride for them. Neither victim had ever met defendant before he picked them up in Sacramento. There were two other passengers (an adult male and a juvenile female), but they are not relevant to the issues defendant raises on appeal. Defendant drove the girls to Monterey County, stopping after midnight at a gas station in Salinas. He asked them how old they were, and they both accurately informed him that they were 17. Jane Doe No. 1 testified that defendant gave them condoms and told them to “go out and make money.” Defendant instructed that if they saw a police officer, they should keep walking and pretend to be talking on the phone. Jane Doe No. 2 testified that defendant told them to charge at least $60 for “car dates,” which meant having “sex in a car.” Defendant instructed them to always be on top during car dates so they could watch out for the police. Jane Doe No. 1 testified that she and Jane Doe No. 2 2