People v. Moore CA1/3
Filed 4/22/21 P. v. Moore CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159252 v. LONNEL MOORE, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 18CR015986) Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Lonnel Moore appeals after a jury convicted him of human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code,1 § 236.1, subd. (c)), soliciting a child under the age of 16 to prostitute (§ 266h, subd. (b)), inducing a child to engage in a lewd act (§ 266j), and committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)). His sole contention on appeal is that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s special allegation finding that the trafficking involved force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury. (§ 236.1, subd. (c)(2).) We affirm.
1 Further section references are to the Penal Code.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2018, 15-year-old K.D.2 ran away from home. A person she knew sent defendant to pick her up. K.D. had never met defendant before and told him she was 19 years old. Defendant said he was 34 years old. K.D. had worked as a prostitute prior to meeting defendant. They began living together in a motel room in Oakland, and K.D. continued engaging in prostitution and gave the money she earned to defendant.3 K.D. always used condoms with customers but had unprotected sex with defendant. She loved defendant and believed they were in a relationship. K.D. used various drugs with defendant, including cocaine, marijuana, and “ecstasy,” the latter of which she started using for the first time with him. Defendant provided K.D. with ecstasy, and she it took “almost every day” and “was never really sober.” The drug heightened her emotions, affected her perceptions, and kept her awake for prolonged periods. During the time K.D. was with defendant, they fought often, and defendant would sometimes hit her and call her names, like “ ‘Bitch’ ” and “ ‘Stupid.’ ” She explained that most of the time when they fought and defendant hit her, they were high and she was numb and felt nothing, but
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)