People v. Joseph

• Decision Date: 03 May 2021
• Docket Number: A153494
• Citation: 63 Cal.App.5th 1058,278 Cal.Rptr.3d 348
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Vernon JOSEPH, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

63 Cal.App.5th 1058

278 Cal.Rptr.3d 348

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.James Vernon JOSEPH, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

A153494

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

Filed May 3, 2021

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

James Kyle Gee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Eric D. Share and Ashley Harlan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Seligman, J.^**

From 2001 to 2015, James Vernon Joseph, Jr. and Avisa Babaei Lavassani ran a lucrative and violent sex trafficking enterprise. A jury convicted Joseph of 19 felonies against several victims, including conspiracy to commit human trafficking ( Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 236.1 )¹ and numerous sex offenses, including 14 counts of rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court sentenced Joseph to a lengthy prison term.

Joseph appeals. He contends: (1) the conspiracy conviction violates the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal Constitution; (2) the court erred by denying his motion for acquittal for improper venue; (3) the court lacked territorial jurisdiction over counts 17 through 21, the rape charges against Jane Doe 5; and (4) the statute of limitations barred certain sex offenses. As we explain, Joseph relies on his ex post facto argument as a basis, in whole or in part, for several of his other claims.

We conclude Joseph's ex post facto claim lacks merit and reject all of his other claims except his territorial jurisdiction claim. We conclude the court lacked territorial jurisdiction over those charges, which were committed in North Carolina. Accordingly, we reverse counts 17 through 21. We affirm the remaining convictions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.Charges

In 2016, the prosecution filed an indictment against Joseph. The operative indictment charged Joseph with 21 felonies against five victims: conspiracy to commit human trafficking ( §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 236.1, subd. (b), count 1); human trafficking with the intent to pimp or pander ( §§ 236.1, subd. (b), 266h, 266i, count 2); kidnapping for rape ( § 209, subd. (b), count 3); kidnapping for extortion ( § 209, subd. (a), count 4); 14 counts of rape ( § 261, subd. (a)(2), counts 5 to 9, 12 to 15, and 17 to 21); two counts of sodomy ( § 286, subd. (c)(2), counts 10 and 16); and forcible oral copulation (former § 288a, subd. (c)(2), count 11).

The indictment also alleged Joseph committed rape, sodomy, and forcible oral copulation against multiple victims ( § 667.61, subds. (c), (e)(4) ) and that Contra Costa County had jurisdiction ( § 781 ).

B.Overview of Prosecution Evidence

1. Jane Doe 1 (Counts 1 and 5–11)

In March 2001, a woman approached Doe 1 at a shopping mall in Monterey and asked whether Doe 1 would be interested in traveling and doing makeup. Doe 1 took the woman's business card. Later, Doe 1 interviewed for the position and "got the job." She met the woman at a restaurant to fill out employment paperwork. At the meeting, Doe 1 "felt like something was wrong," so she left.

As Doe 1 approached her car, Joseph drove up next to her. Another man "forcefully" pulled Doe 1 into the car. Joseph drove to a house in Livermore, where he and his companion carried Doe 1 inside and took off her clothes. Then Joseph held Doe 1 down, and raped and sodomized her. Joseph locked Doe 1 in a bedroom.

A short time later, Joseph introduced Doe 1 to Lavassani, his most senior prostitute. Lavassani told Doe 1 she would be having sex with men for money, and that Joseph would be her pimp. Then Joseph took Doe to her first appointment. On the way there, Joseph forced Doe to orally copulate him.

After the appointment, Doe 1 gave the money to Joseph and begged to go home. He refused. Doe 1 lived in the Livermore house with several other prostitutes.²

Joseph forced Doe 1 to prostitute herself throughout the Bay Area. Doe 1 had prostitution appointments in Walnut Creek, and she was driven through Walnut Creek on her way to other appointments. Doe 1 also traveled to other states for the purpose of prostitution. Joseph assaulted Doe 1 and raped her at least 10 times. He controlled every aspect of Doe 1's life through a regime of violence and fear until March 2002, when Doe 1 was taken into police custody.

2. Jane Doe 2 (Counts 1 and 12–14)

In late 2001, Doe 2 met with Joseph at a nightclub in San Francisco, where he promised her a "modeling contract" and a "great life." Then Joseph took Doe 2 to a hotel in the East Bay to discuss "modeling." Doe 2 asked to leave, but Joseph refused. He made Doe 2 undress and forced her to orally copulate him. Joseph also raped Doe 2. Shortly thereafter, Doe 2 moved into Joseph's house in Tracy, where he raped her several times. Later, Doe 2 moved to Joseph's house in Livermore.

Joseph forced Doe 2 to prostitute herself. Like Doe 1, Doe 2 was taken to prostitution appointments all over the Bay Area. Later, Joseph forced Doe 2 to prostitute herself in New York, Washington D.C., and Miami. In 2002, Doe 2 was taken into police custody in New York.

3. Jane Does 3 and 4 (Counts 1 and 15–16)

In late 2001 or early 2002, Joseph approached Doe 3 at a mall in Pleasanton and offered to provide her with modeling opportunities where she would travel and make money. It sounded exciting, so Doe 3 agreed. Shortly thereafter, Doe 3 moved into Joseph's house in Manteca or Tracy, where at least one of Joseph's prostitutes lived. Later, the plan "changed," and Joseph told Doe 3 she would move to Georgia to model and "go on dates" with men. As Joseph drove Doe 3 from California to Georgia, they got into an argument. Joseph pulled the car over and raped Doe 3 "on the hood of the car."

When Joseph and Doe 3 arrived in Atlanta, they checked into a hotel where Joseph sodomized Doe 3. With Doe 3's encouragement, Doe 4 moved to Atlanta. Joseph raped Does 3 and 4 in Atlanta. Joseph prepared Doe 3 and Doe 4 to prostitute themselves but Doe 3 escaped and returned to California before she had to go on a prostitution appointment.

4. Jane Doe 5 (Counts 1, 2, and 17–21)

In 2013, Joseph approached Jane Doe 5 at a restaurant in Alabama and asked her if she "wanted to model." Doe 5 agreed. Joseph took Doe 5 back to his hotel, where he told Doe 5 that she would start her modeling career by "sleeping with men" for money. Joseph acknowledged what Doe 5 would be doing was illegal, but assured her she would be " ‘safe.’ " He also claimed his prostitution operation was like a " ‘family.’ " Doe 5 quit her job and put her belongings in storage.

Joseph drove Doe 5 to North Carolina. In North Carolina, Joseph raped Doe 5 several times. Doe 5 started working as a prostitute in June 2014. She worked in North Carolina and New York. Doe visited California a "couple times on holidays." In February 2015, she obtained a California driver's license. Three months later, Doe 5 traveled to San Francisco for breast augmentation surgery. Doe had the surgery to improve her chances of landing a modeling contract. Doe 5 spent two weeks in California recovering from the surgery. Then she returned to New York, where she was later taken into police custody.

5. Police Investigation

Police arrested Joseph at his home in Danville in August 2015. During the investigation, police found condoms, lubricant, and emergency contraceptive medication. They also found large amounts of cash, expensive cars, jewelry, and designer clothes and accessories. Police also recovered Doe 5's birth certificate and her passport. Police obtained text messages from Joseph and Lavassani's cell phones discussing the human trafficking operation.

An expert in forensic accounting determined Joseph and Lavassani deposited the proceeds of the prostitution enterprise into shell corporations. From 2013 to 2015, the enterprise generated between $111,960 to $223,920 per month.

C.Verdict and Sentence

The jury acquitted Joseph of counts 3 and 4, which involved Doe 1. It convicted Joseph of the remaining charges and found the multiple victim allegation true. The court sentenced Joseph to 159 years, plus 15 years to life, in state prison.

DISCUSSION

I.The Conspiracy Conviction Did Not Violate the Ex Post Facto Prohibition

Joseph's first claim is the conviction for conspiracy to commit human trafficking violated the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitution. According to Joseph, the "agreement," and many of the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, took place before section 236.1 criminalized human trafficking.³

A. Background

Count 1 charged Joseph with conspiracy to commit human trafficking and alleged overt acts occurring between 2001 and 2015: overt acts 1 through 27 occurred in 2001 and 2002; acts 28 through 34 occurred in 2014 and 2015. Before trial, Joseph moved to dismiss count 1 pursuant to section 995. He argued the charge violated the ex post facto prohibition because the conspiracy as to overt acts 1 through 27 was completed before human trafficking became a crime in 2006.

The prosecution disagreed, contending there was no ex post facto violation because the charge alleged "a continuing course of conduct that straddle[d]" enactment of section 236.1. The court denied the motion and the jury convicted Joseph of count 1.

B. Conspiracy

A conspiracy consists of two or more persons conspiring to commit any crime. ( § 182, subd. (a).) "A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act ‘by one or more of the parties to such agreement’ in furtherance of the conspiracy. [Citations.] [¶] Criminal conspiracy is an offense distinct from the actual commission of a criminal offense that is the object of the conspiracy."

( People v. Morante (1999) ...