People v. Smith CA4/3

Filed 6/1/22 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G060159

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CF2620)

BELMON CHARLES SMITH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall, 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, Eric A. Swenson and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Belmon Charles Smith challenges his convictions for attempted pimping and attempted pandering. He asserts the trial court denied him his right to a fair trial by failing to discharge a Spanish speaking juror who looked up the dictionary definitions of pimping and pandering during deliberations. We find no error and affirm the judgment. FACTS I. Underlying Case An information alleged Smith engaged in pimping in violation of Penal 1 Code section 266h, subdivision (a) (count 1). It further alleged Smith engaged in pandering and procured prostitution in violation of section 266i, subdivision (a) (count 2). Finally, the information asserted Smith committed identity theft in violation of section 530.5 subdivision (c), subsection (2) and section 530.55, subdivision (b) (count 3). Smith pleaded guilty to count 3 prior to trial. After trial, the jury found Smith not guilty on counts 1 and 2 but guilty of the lesser included offenses of attempted pimping and attempted pandering. II. Juror Misconduct At the end of voir dire, the trial court asked if there were any potential jurors who were not proficient in English. Juror No. 122, along with several others, responded in the affirmative. The court asked those jurors to stay to speak with them privately. Juror 122 stated he had lived in this country for 30 years and spoke English, “but not so well.” When questioned if he understood everything the judge said, he replied he understood about 80 to 90 percent. When asked what he did not understand about the proceedings, the juror offered no specific examples and instead reiterated he understood several specific parts of the proceedings. The court determined his English adequate, and neither of the parties requested his discharge.