People v. Mays
| Decision Date | 28 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. D046696.,D046696. |
| Citation | 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 356,148 Cal.App.4th 13 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Deshawn Alvin MAYS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Michelle C. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch and James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Deshawn Alvin Mays1 was convicted by a jury of pimping (Pen.Code, § 266h, subd. (a)) and eight counts of money laundering (id., § 186.10, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to a total term of four years eight months, which included an eight-month term for violating probation in another case.
On appeal, Meyo contends the money laundering counts must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence to show each count involved at least a $5,000 transactional amount derived from or intended to promote criminal activity, the money laundering statute is unconstitutionally vague, and the court failed to properly instruct the jury on all the elements of money laundering. We affirm the judgment.
Mayo ran an escort service, Exotic Secrets. The escort service charged $150 to $300 for a one-hour "private dance." Six or seven out of every 10 customers requested sexual services. The fees for the sexual services ranged from $50 to $1,500, depending on the services provided. The core group of women gave all their earnings to Mayo, including fees from sexual services, and he paid for all their living expenses, including rent, food, and cell phones used in the escort/prostitution business. Mayo provided a house for the women on Ewing Drive.
A San Diego police detective testified about the typical differences between street and escort prostitution. Street prostitutes usually have a pimp who provides the prostitutes with a hotel room and sometimes food and money for condoms, and in return the prostitutes give the pimp all the money they earn. In contrast, a person running an escort business typically builds a wall between himself and his escort prostitutes to make it appear they are independently engaging in prostitution. Escort prostitutes generally charge more money for sexual acts and less frequently have a pimp.
Typically, street prostitutes recruit other prostitutes for their pimp; this does not typically occur in escort prostitution. The women working for Mayo recruited other escort prostitutes. Escort prostitutes infrequently have sex with the person running the business, while street prostitutes often have sex with their pimps. Mayo regularly had sex with the women who worked for him. While street prostitutes have tattoos reflecting their pimp, this is not usually seen with escort prostitutes. Several of Mayo's escort prostitutes had tattoos of the logo for Mayo's business, Supreme Entertainment, on their lower backs and one woman was told if she stayed long enough and proved she was "down" enough, she could earn a tattoo like the other women.
Mayo, doing business as Supreme Entertainment, rented connected suites 207 and 209 on Palm Street for 24 months beginning in April 2001. One suite was the office of Exotic Secrets. The other suite housed a music studio for Supreme Entertainment which was assertedly in the business of making records, however, there was no evidence this business ever produced any albums or compact discs.2 In July 2003, Mayo moved from suites 207 and 209 to suite 108 in the same building. In September, his sister who had been handling calls at Exotic Secrets, nominally rented suite 205 in the Palm Street building for a business "Southwest Referral," but Mayo paid the rent and obtained a reduction in the rent from the landlord for this suite. The sister told the landlord her business was "like finding business for people."
In February 2002, Mayo and one of the women working at his escort business presented themselves as husband and wife in order to rent a residence on Fairway Court. Mayo's mother, two of his brothers, and other relatives lived there and at another residence on Steiner Drive rented by Mayo and the escort prostitute posing as his wife.
Mayo had a number of bank accounts, including one at Washington Mutual in his own name, a Union Bank account in the name of Supreme Entertainment and a Humboldt Merchant Bank account originally in the name of Supreme Entertainment doing business as A.M.S. Services that was later changed to Southwest Referral. When credit card charges were made for escort services, the payments were made to the Humboldt Merchant Bank account, which held the money for a day or two before transferring the funds to the Southwest Referral account. Additionally, Mayo's sister, doing business as Southwest Referral, had a Union Bank account.
Mayo was convicted of eight counts of money laundering occurring between the end of May 2002 and early July 2003. Each count involved a cash deposit or two cash deposits into, and checks written from, a checking account within a 10-day period. At the time the deposits were made, the balances in the accounts were at most a few hundred dollars. Within 10 days of the deposits, Mayo wrote checks (or checks cleared), inter alia, for the rent on the Palm Street offices, rent on the Ewing Drive residence and payment of phone bills.
Count 3 — Deposits Totaling $8,300
Between May 30 and June 3, 2002, Mayo made cash deposits totaling $8,300 into his Washington Mutual account. At the time of the May 30 deposit, the balance in the account was a negative $290. Within 10 days, he wrote checks totaling nearly $3,600 to cover rent for suites 207 and 209 on Palm Street and the Ewing Drive residence.
On June 28, 2002, a $9,000 cash deposit was made to Mayo's Washington Mutual account. Prior to the deposit, the balance in the account was $379. On July 8, 2002, a $5,650 cash deposit was made to the Washington Mutual account. Between July 5 and July 8, checks totaling over $5,800 cleared the account covering the rent for the Ewing Drive residence and suites 207 and 209 on Palm Street and the cell phone bill.
Count 6 — Deposit of $5,650
On October 28, 2002, Mayo deposited $5,650 in cash into his Supreme Entertainment account at Union Bank. At the time of the deposit, the account had a balance of $262.27. Mayo wrote checks from this account totaling $5,645 to cover the rent for suites 207 and 209 on Palm Street and the cell phone bill.
Count 7 — Deposit of $5,430
On February 3, 2003, Mayo made a cash deposit of $5,430 into his Washington Mutual Bank account. At the time of the deposit, the balance in the account was $60.34. On February 6, 2003, Mayo's check for $2,350 for rent on the Ewing Drive residence cleared the account. Count 8 — Deposit of $5,500
On March 4, 2003, Mayo made a cash deposit of $5,500 into his Washington Mutual account. By March 10, Mayo's checks totaling $4,445 for the rent on the Ewing Drive and the Fairway Court residences had cleared the account.
Count 9 — Deposits Totaling $7,200
Between April 30 and May 6, 2003, Mayo made two deposits into his Washington Mutual account totaling $7,200. Prior to the first deposit, the balance in the account was $287. Between May 1 and May 9, checks totaling $7,250 cleared the account — one for rent on the Ewing Drive residence, and the other payable to Albert Slott with a memo on the check noting "rent + deposit."
Count 10 — Deposit of $8,000
On July 3, 2003, Mayo made an $8,000 cash deposit into his Supreme Entertainment account at Union Bank. At the time he made the deposit, the balance was $718. From this deposit;, Mayo wrote checks totaling $5,903.99 to cover the rent on the Ewing Drive residence and the cell phone bill.
Mayo was convicted of money laundering as provided in Penal Code section 186.10, subdivision (a).3 He contends the People must prove the entire minimum transactional amount of $5,000 laundered through a financial institution was related to criminal activity. Mayo also contends the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Penal Code section 186.10, subdivision (a), California's money laundering statute, in pertinent part, provides: "(a) Any person who conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction or more than one transaction within a seven-day period involving a monetary instrument or instruments of a total value exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) . . . through one or more financial institutions (1) with the specific intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on of any criminal activity, or (2) knowing that the monetary instrument represents the proceeds of, or is derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of, criminal activity, is guilty of the crime of money laundering. . . ." A transaction includes a deposit into or withdrawal from a financial institution. (Pen. Code, § 186.9, subd. (c).)
Enacted in 1986, this and related legislation was prompted by the growth of money laundering associated with drug trafficking in California, which had occurred, in part, due to federal investigations of Florida banks and Florida's enactment of a cash transaction reporting requirement for financial institutions. (Stats.1986, ch. 1039, § 2; Pen.Code, §§ 186.9, 186.10, 14160-14167.) Money laundering was not a crime under existing federal or state laws, but could only be prosecuted as a violation under the federal Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.), which required financial institutions to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000 to the federal department of justice. (Assem. Com. on Pub. Safety, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1470 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bush
...an initial point, we agree a "trial court must instruct the jury on all elements of the charged offenses." (People v. Mays (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 13, 36, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 356 (Mays ), citing People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 480, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869 ; see, e.g., People v. Hi......
-
Garcia v. Santana
...Cal.4th 704, 708-709 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 689, 161 P.3d 198].) If possible, each word and phrase should be given significance. (People v. Mays (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 13, 29 .) The words used "must be construed in context, and statutes must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to t......
-
People v. Carranza
...not ‘interpret away clear language in favor of an ambiguity that does not exist.’ [Citation.]" [Citations.]' " (People v. Mays (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 13, 29, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 356.)Nonetheless, an examination of the legislative analyses prepared as AB 1375 was considered reveals no discussion ......
-
Wedemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
...704, 709, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 689, 161 P.3d 198.) If possible, each word and phrase should be given significance. (People v. Mays (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 13, 29, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 356.) The words used "must be construed in context, and statutes must be harmonized, both internally and with each other......
-
Untangling Laundered Funds: The Tracing Requirement Under 18 U.S.C. [section] 1957.
...1999) (emphasis added). (174.) Id. at 1021-22. (175.) Id. at 1026. (176.) See id. (177.) See id. at 1025. (178.) See People v. Mays, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356, 366-70 (Ct. App. 2007), abrogated by People v. Bolding, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 760 (Ct. App. (179.) Bolding, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 765-67. (18......