People v. Calhoun
| Decision Date | 09 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | G055511 |
| Citation | 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 623,38 Cal.App.5th 275 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Wayne CALHOUN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Alan S. Yockelson, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Annie Featherman Fraser and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
John Wayne Calhoun recruited 13-year-old D.T. into prostitution, acted as her pimp, treated her violently, and engaged in sex acts with her. A jury convicted him of human trafficking of a minor, pimping a minor under the age of 16, pandering a minor under the age of 16, lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14, unlawful sexual intercourse, and oral copulation of a child under the age of 14. The jury found true an allegation that Calhoun unlawfully used force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury in committing the crime of human trafficking. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison with a consecutive term of six years for one count of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 and a consecutive term of two years for another count of the same offense.
We affirm. As to each of Calhoun's contentions, we conclude: (1) the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of D.T.'s acts of prostitution occurring after Calhoun was placed in custody; (2) the evidence at the preliminary hearing imparted notice to Calhoun of the factual basis for counts 6 and 7 sufficient to satisfy due process; (3) venue in Orange County was proper; (4) the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of certain text messages; (5) expert testimony on statements made by D.T. during a police interview and on the content of text messages was admissible and any error was harmless; and (6) the trial court did stay execution of sentence on counts 2, 3, and 5 pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
D.T. was born in October 2002. She was placed in foster homes or group homes beginning in October 2015 because her father physically and emotionally abused her and had a substance abuse problem. In May 2016, she ran away from a group home in Victorville and went with a friend to visit a man named Raymond, who happened to be Calhoun's cousin. At Raymond's house, D.T. met Calhoun. She spent the night at Raymond's house, and in the morning Calhoun gave D.T. and her friend a ride to a store. D.T. and Calhoun waited in the car while her friend went inside the store. Calhoun asked D.T. how old she was. D.T. told him she was 21 years old.
After returning to Raymond's house, D.T. and Calhoun talked for several hours. Calhoun said he was 30 years old. He asked D.T. if she "had ever made money before." D.T. did not know what he was talking about and answered no.
Calhoun asked D.T. to go with him to the home of Anntaneisha Louie, whom Calhoun called "Auntie," in San Bernardino. D.T. agreed. When they arrived at Louie's house, D.T. waited in the car while Calhoun went inside. Calhoun returned with women's clothing, which he said were for D.T. While at Louie's house Calhoun again asked D.T. if she "had ever made money."
When she asked what he meant, he asked her if she "had ever slept with people to get money." She told him no.
After spending several nights at Louie's house, Calhoun drove D.T. to Ontario, California, where he picked up two women at an apartment complex. Each woman carried a bag of clothing. Calhoun drove D.T. and the women to a hotel in Los Angeles. The next morning, Calhoun told D.T. to get up and take a shower. When she got out of the shower, some of the clothes the women had brought were laid out on the bed. Calhoun selected a dress and told D.T. to put it on. D.T. did as she was told. Calhoun, along with D.T., took the two women back to Ontario. When D.T. asked Calhoun who the women were, Calhoun said it was none of her business.
Calhoun and D.T. returned to Louie's house, where Calhoun told D.T. he wanted to take photographs of her and post them on Backpage, an online website for advertising prostitution services. D.T. did not want to do it, but she was scared of what Calhoun might do if she said no, so she agreed. Calhoun took photographs of D.T. wearing lingerie and posted the photographs on Backpage. D.T. did not object because she did not want Calhoun to believe she did not want to do it.
About one hour later, Calhoun received a text message in response to the Backpage posting. He drove D.T. to a house in San Bernardino to meet the customer. On the way, Calhoun gave her a price list for various sex acts and went over some of the rules of the trade. He gave D.T. a condom and told her to always use one. He asked her to call him "Daddy" and told her to immediately delete any text messages they exchanged so the messages would not be available if police ever looked through her phone.
When they arrived, Calhoun parked down the street, said he would wait in the car, and told D.T. to text him when she went inside. D.T. performed the requested sexual act and was paid $80. She did not want to do it but she did not want Calhoun to be angry with her. She gave the money to Calhoun.
Calhoun drove D.T. back to Louie's house, where D.T. was given some clothes. He then drove her to G Street, known as a "track" or "blade" (an area frequented by prostitutes) in San Bernardino. Calhoun told her he was "going to put her down on G Street" where she "was to make money for him." He gave D.T. three condoms, ordered her out of the car, and told her to complete three sex acts and give the money to him. She did as she was told and turned the money over to Calhoun.
Calhoun and D.T. returned to Louie's house. Calhoun left and instructed D.T. to stay there until he returned. D.T. did not want to be alone and texted a friend named Michael. He picked up D.T. and took her to his house. When D.T. arrived at Louie's house, Calhoun asked her where she went. She did not want to tell him the truth because he had ordered her not to talk to any other African-American men (he had told her that any African-American man who tried to talk to her was likely another pimp). D.T. told Calhoun that she had gone to visit her aunt. He accused her of lying and ordered her to go outside. D.T. and Calhoun left and got into his car. He punched her in the left eye (giving her a black eye), and told her not to lie to him again. They spent the night at Louie's house and had sexual intercourse with each other for the first time.
Calhoun left Louie's house the next morning and again told D.T. to stay there until he got back. D.T. was angry with Calhoun for leaving without saying where he was going. She sent a text message to her friend Markell Stewart and asked him to come and get her. While D.T. was with Stewart, Calhoun sent her text messages instructing her to return to Louie's house. D.T. sent a text message to Calhoun that she was staying with her aunt but she spent the night with Stewart in Victorville. The next day, Stewart dropped D.T. and another woman off along G Street. D.T. walked G Street looking for customers so that she would have money to give Calhoun.
On May 10, 2016, San Bernardino Police Detective Kimberly Hernandez was driving a marked patrol car westbound on 9th Street approaching G Street in the City of San Bernardino. She pulled over a vehicle driven by Stewart because it had tinted windows. Hernandez searched the vehicle and found two cell phones in the center console. One cell phone was a white HTC brand and the other was a black Vortex brand. Hernandez also found, in the back seat of the car, women's clothing of the type typically worn by prostitutes in the area. Hernandez confiscated the two cell phones.
Once the traffic stop was concluded, Hernandez continued patrolling the area. While driving southbound on G Street she saw a woman (K.V.), whom she recognized from an identification card found in Stewart's vehicle. Hernandez also noticed that K.V. was walking with a very young girl whom Hernandez had not seen before. At trial, Hernandez identified the young girl as D.T. Hernandez believed that K.V. and D.T. were working as prostitutes and made contact with them.
D.T. identified herself by a false name and told Hernandez she was 20 years old. Hernandez observed D.T. had a ZTE brand cell phone and two condoms sticking out of her back pocket. Hernandez placed D.T. in the back of the patrol car and took her to the police station. While in the patrol car, D.T. revealed her true name and age and stated she had run away from a group home.
At the police station, Hernandez and a sheriff's deputy interviewed D.T. for over five hours. During the interview, D.T. identified Calhoun as her pimp and said she had been working for him for several months. She said Calhoun had driven her to several blades in San Bernardino and Orange County to work as a prostitute for him. She had been with Calhoun the previous day, but had left him and took his cell phones with her. Stewart had driven D.T. and K.V. to San Bernardino that day. D.T. said Calhoun had "laid his hands on her" many times, recently had "socked her in the jaw," and was mean to her and did not respect her. Calhoun expected her to earn $500 to $600 in San Bernardino and $900 in Orange County and if she did not make her "trap" (quota), Calhoun would "whoop her ass." Calhoun would apologize after striking D.T. but he did not change his behavior.
D.T. told Hernandez the two cell phones found in Stewart's vehicle belonged to Calhoun. She took the cell phones from Calhoun because she was upset with him and had left them in Stewart's vehicle. The white...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilson
...time at which specific acts occurred are not material and do not deprive a defendant of adequate notice. ( People v. Calhoun (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 275, 306-309, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 623.) Accordingly, Wilson's contentions to the contrary have no merit.16 IV.False Evidence Wilson argues that the ......
-
People v. Sorden
...therefore cannot be prosecuted for an offense not shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing[.]" ( People v. Calhoun (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 275, 303, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 623.) Appellant does not contend that he was convicted of an offense not shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearin......
-
People v. Bell
...This type of error is a matter of state law and is reviewed under the more deferential Watson standard. (People v. Calhoun (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 275, 316–317, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 623 ; People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 1003–1004, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 910.)44 The Attorney General does not ar......
-
People v. Thompkins
...defendants were likely to see a better outcome. ( Watson , supra , 46 Cal.2d at p. 836, 299 P.2d 243 ; People v. Calhoun (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 275, 316, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 623 ( Calhoun ) [ Watson standard applied to nontestimonial Sanchez error]; Flint , supra , 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1003-100......
-
Table of cases
...36 Cal. Rptr. 2dd 333, §4:90 Caldwell, People v. (2013) 212 Cal. App. 4th 1262,152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99, §21:120 Calhoun, People v. (2019) 38 Cal. App. 5th 275, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623, §10:210 Calhoun, People v. (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 519, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 166, §2:180 California Business Counc......
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...credibility or impeach the character of the victim in any civil or criminal proceeding. Evid. Code §1161(b); People v. Calhoun (2019) 38 Cal. App. 5th 275, 299-300, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623. Evidence that a victim of, or a witness to, a serious felony, assault, domestic violence, extortion, hu......
-
Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
...(2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 813 (statement made by three-year-old witness to aunt was nontestimonial); People v. Calhoun (4th Dist.2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 275, 319-20 (text messages used by expert in rendering opinion were nontestimonial; messages were informal, did not involve law enforcement, and......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Calabrese, 101 Cal. App. 4th 79, 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 570 (4th Dist. 2002)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(2)(a)[4] People v. Calhoun, 38 Cal. App. 5th 275, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 (4th Dist. 2019)—Ch. 2, §2.1.1(2)(f)[2]; Ch. 3-B, §8.2.2; §13.2.2(2); Ch. 4-B, §3.5.2(2)(b); Ch. 5-E, §3.2.1(3)(e)[1]; Ch......