H.B. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 11/17/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

H.B.,

Petitioner, A168069 v. (Solano County Super. Ct. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF No. FCR341808) SOLANO COUNTY, Respondent;

LAMAR DESHAWN HALL, Real Party in Interest.

After Lamar Deshawn Hall pleaded no contest to human trafficking (Pen. Code,1 § 236.1, subd. (a)) and pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a)), the victim (H.B.) requested restitution: $31,336 for stolen Social Security payments and damage to her credit score, $340,500 for money she received and had taken from her for acts of prostitution Hall forced her to commit, and interest accrued on both sums. The trial court granted restitution as to the financial losses but denied it as to the prostitution earnings on the ground that section 1202.4, subdivision (p), does not expressly authorize restitution for a

1 All subsequent references to statute are to the Penal Code, unless

otherwise noted.

1

victim’s labor where that labor is itself proscribed by law. In this petition for writ of mandate, H.B. argues that subdivision (p) requires restitution for the illegal labor Hall forced her to perform. We agree and will grant writ relief. BACKGROUND According to H.B.’s declaration in support of her request for restitution, Hall began “exploiting” H.B. “soon after” he met her, “mentally and physically” abusing H.B. “every day [she] was under his control for over [three and a half years].” During that period, Hall made H.B. “work for him,” providing “sexual services to customers” and charging “anywhere from $80 to $1,000 per customer.” She “earned approximately $300 daily” for that labor, but Hall “took all of this money.” On that basis, H.B.’s request for restitution sought $340,500 for Hall’s “ill-gotten gains.” (Capitalization omitted.) At the conclusion of Hall’s restitution hearing, the trial court ruled: “As to the $340,500, the ill-gotten gains as we’ve been, just for purposes of ease of discussion, calling them, I’m going to decline to issue restitution award in that regard . . . .” The court then added: “I can see the public policy arguments on both sides, and frankly, I think the public policy arguments favor H.B.’s position, but this Court is cognizant of the fact that I’m a judge, not a legislator, and public policy decisions are for the legislature, and I do not wish to cross the lines, as it relates to separation of powers.” This petition followed. DISCUSSION H.B. argues that section 1202.4, subdivision (p) “authorizes the recovery of funds earned through illegal conduct that a trafficker forced their victim to commit.” We agree that this section authorizes restitution for H.B. for return of the money she received for sexual services Hall forced her to commit.