People v. Son
| Decision Date | 18 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | B234532 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHANG YEOP SON, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen A. Marcus, Judge. Affirmed.
Flier & Flier, Andrew Reed Flier and Theodore S. Flier for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The jury found defendant and appellant Chang Yeop Son guilty in counts 2 and 3 of pimping1 (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a)).2 The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of three years as to count 2 and a concurrent term of three years as to count 3.
Defendant argues that: (1) the admission of a police interview with his codefendant violated his right to confront witnesses; (2) his statement to officers was involuntary because he was coerced and not sufficiently advised of his right to have counsel appointed free of charge; (3) he was prejudiced by the admission of irrelevant testimony regarding "bandit taxis"; (4) the jury was improperly given conspiracy and aiding and abetting instructions when the facts did not support a theory of conspiracy and the prosecution did not proceed on an aiding and abetting theory; (5) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction on the lesser included offense of attempted pimping; and (6) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the proceeds of the prostitution helped to support defendant.
We affirm the judgment.
On March 18, 2009, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Jimmy Yoo participated in the undercover investigation of a massage parlor on Irolo Street in the Koreatown area, which was suspected of operating as a brothel. Officer Yoo telephoned the massage parlor posing as an employee of "25-Hour Taxi." He told the woman he spoke to that he had a customer. She answered that he should bring the customer to the massage parlor on Irolo Street.
Once at Irolo Street, Officer Yoo posed as the customer who had purportedly been brought to the location by "25-Hour Taxi." Won Kim3 greeted Officer Yoo, asked if hewanted a "young girl" or a "pretty girl," and requested payment. Officer Yoo said that he had been told to pay $200, but Won Kim said the price had gone up to $250. Officer Yoo told Won Kim that he wanted a young girl to orally copulate him and have intercourse with him. She responded that she had a young girl who could provide the requested sexual services. Officer Yoo paid Won Kim $250.
Won Kim then escorted Officer Yoo to a room and asked him to wait. She returned with a very young looking girl named Ji Soo, who was wearing a mini skirt and bikini top. Won Kim told Ji Soo that she should "take good care of [Officer Yoo]" by orally copulating him and having intercourse with him.
Ji Soo requested that Officer Yoo take a shower before they engaged in sexual activities. Officer Yoo excused himself to use the restroom. When he returned, Ji Soo was reclining on the bed naked. Officer Yoo received a prearranged call from another officer, excused himself, and left immediately.
On April 30, 2009, Officer Yoo returned to the massage parlor, where he was again greeted by Won Kim, who remembered his previous visit. Officer Yoo told Won Kim that he wanted "to have a great time again." Won Kim told him that Ji Soo was no longer working there, but that she had another girl who would orally copulate him and have sex with him. She asked Officer Yoo for payment, and he gave it to her.
Officer Yoo was taken to the same room he had been taken to on his last visit. Won Kim brought Nana Park to the room and told her to give Officer Yoo oral copulation and sexual intercourse. Once Won Kim left the room, Officer Yoo told Nana Park that he was married to a Caucasian woman but longed for a Korean woman. He said that he did not want sexual services from her. He wanted to talk and get to know her.
When Officer Yoo left the room, Won Kim asked if the sexual services he received were satisfactory. He said they were and that he would return soon.
Officer Yoo identified a white Toyota van as being present during his April 30, 2009 visit. It was subsequently confirmed that the van was registered to defendant. Los Angeles Police Officer Vincent Chan followed defendant, who was driving a white 2006 Toyota Sienna van, to several locations in Koreatown as part of the investigation of themassage parlor. He saw defendant pick up a man and a woman from different locations and take them to La Habra. In his opinion, defendant was "acting as a taxi service" at the time. Officer Chan observed the white Sienna van at the Irolo location on three occasions between April 7, 2009, and April 30, 2009. Officer Chan explained that "Korean taxis" were private, unmarked vehicles, which were used just as unlicensed cabs. Korean cabs did not typically pick up passengers on the street but, instead, passed out business cards to obtain referrals. In Officer Chan's experience, Korean cabs often serviced bars and brothels.
Da Hye Kim, who worked as a prostitute in the massage parlor, came to the United States from Korea to work at the Irolo Street location. She came to the United States on a three-month tourist visa in response to an internet ad seeking a part-time masseuse position.4 Da Hye Kim contacted a person named "Brian" through the ad, and he paid for her airfare.
Da Hye Kim arrived in the United States on March 30, 2009. Defendant met her at the airport and drove her to the massage parlor. Da Hye Kim was introduced to codefendant, who instructed her in removing clothing, oiling her body, and putting a condom on a man. She told Da Hye Kim that "there would be intercourse." Da Hye Kim proceeded to have sexual intercourse with customers at the massage parlor on a regular basis. She was instructed to have intercourse with an average of five to six customers a day.
Da Hye Kim identified defendant as a taxi driver. She testified that she saw him at the massage parlor "almost once a day."5 Defendant would sometimes drop people off at the massage parlor and leave, but other times he would come in and sit there. Defendant was sometimes inside the massage parlor when customers were present.
On one occasion, defendant drove Da Hye Kim and Nana Park on an "out call" assignment to provide sexual services outside of the massage parlor. Defendant told the women to contact him when they were finished or if "something happen[ed]." He told them that he would be outside.
Ju Yi Hyun, who worked as a prostitute in the massage parlor, also responded to an internet ad for a part-time masseuse. She contacted a person named "Brian" through the ad, who paid her airfare from Korea to the United States. Upon arrival, she was taken to a coffee shop to meet codefendant. Afterward, she was transported from the coffee shop to the Irolo Street location by taxi, where she met Won Kim. Ju Yi Hyun was told to change into a tight low-cut dress and was then taken to a room where a man was waiting. She was instructed to have the man take a shower and then have sex with him.
Ju Yi Hyun did not want to have sex with the man and told codefendant that she wanted to return to Korea. Codefendant discouraged her, saying that it was only Ju Yi Hyun's first day and she still owed "the broker" for airfare. Because she had no money, Ju Yi Hyun stayed and provided sexual services to customers brought to her by codefendant.
Ju Yi Hyun knew defendant as "the taxi driver." All the women at the massage parlor "referred to [defendant] as a taxi driver." Ju Yi Hyun saw defendant at the massage parlor "almost every day." Defendant told Ju Yi Hyun that he was friends with codefendant.
Officer Yoo interviewed defendant after he was arrested. Defendant told him that he owned "25-Hour Limo Taxi." Defendant admitted that he had driven a woman named Soo to Irvine "for purpose[s] of prostitution." He also told Officer Yoo that he had picked Da Hye Kim up at the airport when she arrived in the United States and took her to the massage parlor.
Defendant challenges the trial court's ruling allowing portions of Detective Sean Kim's interview with nontestifying codefendant to be read into the record. Defendant argues the statements by codefendant implicated him, and therefore, admission of the statements against codefendant violated defendant's right to confront witnesses.
Defendant bases his contention on admission of the following portions of codefendant's statement to the police:
Defendant asserts that the statements implicate him because they relate to codefendant splitting profits with "the taxi driver." He argues the error is highly prejudicial because it is the only direct evidence that he derived support from the earnings of the women's prostitution, a required element for conviction under section 266h.
The Attorney General counters that the statements did not facially incriminate defendant because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial