People v. Griffin CA4/3

Filed 5/3/22 P. v. Griffin CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060105

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11WF1233)

MANDAK KOHN GRIFFIN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Mandak Kohn Griffin appeals from a lengthy sentence following his conviction for multiple sex crimes against minors, possession of child pornography, and using a minor to assist in distributing or producing child pornography. Griffin contends his conviction for violating Penal Code section 311.4, subdivision (a) 1, must be reversed for lack of evidence he used a minor to distribute pornography. As explained below, we conclude the prosecution charged Griffin with using a minor to produce child pornography, the production theory was argued to the fact finder, and the trial evidence supported that theory. Griffin also appeals from the imposition of various fines and fees, but as explained below, we conclude he forfeited his claim of error because he failed to object below. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Investigation In 2010, FBI agent Nicholas Phirippidis was investigating persons suspected of using a peer-to-peer file sharing program called Gigatribe to trade child pornography. Appellant used the commercial version of the program, which allowed him to grant full control over designated folders on his computer to other users, including viewing and downloading files in the folders. While Phirippidis was viewing and downloading files from appellant’s computer, appellant sent him a chat message asking, “Do you have any boy stuff?” Phirippidis responded, “What do you like?” and appellant replied, “White boys around four to 12, kinda like the pics[ ] that I have.”