People v. Richardson

• Citation: 65 Cal.App.5th 360,279 Cal.Rptr.3d 602
• Decision Date: 10 June 2021
• Docket Number: A157529
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Devonne Lavert RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant.

65 Cal.App.5th 360

279 Cal.Rptr.3d 602

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Devonne Lavert RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant.

A157529

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

Filed June 10, 2021

David L. Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Lance E. Winters and Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorneys General, Rene A. Chacon and Juliet B. Haley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jackson, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plea bargaining is essential to the efficient and fair operation of the justice system. Plea bargains provide a method of disposing of criminal prosecutions through guilty or no contest pleas by a defendant in return for a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of less punishment than if he or she were convicted of all the charged offenses. Despite its inherent flexibility, the plea bargaining process does not give unfettered discretion to the prosecution and the trial court. The law requires that any negotiated plea must have a factual basis. However, in this case the negotiated plea was no more valid than a no contest plea to murder where the victim is still alive.

Defendant Devonne Lavert Richardson pleaded no contest to one count of human trafficking of a minor for a sex act ( Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)(1) ),¹ but the victim was 26 years old. In exchange for the plea, the remaining felony charges were dismissed. The trial court denied defendant's request for probation and imposed a five-year state prison term allowed under the plea agreement.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging his sentence and the validity of his plea. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause based on "the sentence he received in the case." Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

After defendant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and seeking review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071 ( Wende ),² we requested briefing on whether defendant's failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause precluded defendant's appeal and whether the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it approved a plea bargain for human trafficking of a minor for a sex act ( § 236.1, subd. (c)(1) ) because it was undisputed that the victim was an adult. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

A. Facts³

On August 18, 2018, the Redwood City Police Department responded to a call from a concerned citizen about a fight between a man and a woman in a parking lot. The responding officer spoke to the female (identified in the record as "Confidential Victim" or "CV"), who denied any altercation with the male (later identified as defendant). The officer did not notice any visible signs of injury, and CV denied any injury and refused medical attention. Because CV had no safe place to go, she agreed to be taken to First Chance in Burlingame.

The next morning, CV told a counselor at First Chance that she had fled from defendant, who was her pimp and was driving her to a " ‘date.’ " When CV told defendant that she would not go through with the date, defendant grabbed her by the neck and threw her to the ground. When he noticed that people were watching, defendant drove off with CV's purse and cell phone. Based on this report, the police were called and CV provided a statement.

CV first met defendant at an Airbnb in Stockton on August 1, 2018. At the time, CV was 26 years old. Defendant promised her that if she left with him he would take care of her financially and they would eventually find a place to stay. She left the Airbnb with defendant and they drove to Sacramento.

Once in Sacramento, defendant and CV had sex in defendant's car. Defendant told CV that she now belonged to him. He told CV that she "had to walk the blade," which meant to walk in an area of the city where "johns" (men looking for sex workers)⁴ would go to hire sex workers. She would need to work as a sex worker to make money, and in return defendant would provide a place to stay, food, transportation, and protection.

Defendant also told CV that she would have to take nude photographs of herself for defendant to post online. CV told defendant that she did not want to take such photographs because she was afraid that her parents or someone she knew would see them, but defendant told her that in order for her to eat, she would need to take the photographs. She complied. Although CV did not want to engage in sex work for defendant, she did so because she was addicted to methamphetamine and needed a way to support her addiction. Defendant also had her cell phone, her personal identification, and the naked pictures; she feared he would send the pictures to all her phone contacts, including her parents.

CV related that she had five or six transactions with men she met while walking the blade in Sacramento. In each case, defendant, who drove CV to the area, kept all the money. CV was instructed never to identify him to any authority figure as her pimp.

After about a week in Sacramento, CV left defendant and did not return to him after walking the blade. However, CV continued working as a sex worker and walking the blade on her own until defendant found her a week later. CV agreed to go back to defendant because he apologized to her and told her he would not "make her do things" any longer and her life would be better. She also went back because defendant still had her cell phone and the naked pictures.

On August 17, 2018, defendant and CV traveled to San Francisco, where defendant again wanted CV to walk the blade. On the morning of August 18, 2018, defendant told CV that they had an "outcall" (a date) in Redwood City. Defendant drove CV to a street corner in Redwood City and told her to wait for the customer. CV waited, but the customer did not arrive so she returned to defendant's car. Defendant would not let her back in the car and told her to return to the corner. CV reached into the car and grabbed her purse. Defendant got out of the car and grabbed CV by the neck, hitting her with her purse and throwing her to the ground, where he began kicking her in the face and head. When defendant noticed that bystanders were watching, he stopped the assault and drove off, still in possession of CV's purse.

Eventually, defendant was arrested on August 23, 2018.

B. Charges, Plea, and Sentencing

On November 16, 2018, defendant was charged by information with seven felonies, to wit: human trafficking ( § 236.1, subd. (b) [count 1]); second degree robbery ( § 212.5, subd. (c) [count 2]); living and deriving support and maintenance from the earnings of a person known to defendant to be a prostitute ( § 266H, subd. (a) [counts 3 & 5]); unlawfully and by threats of violence persuading and encouraging another person to become a prostitute ( § 266I, subd. (a)(2) [counts 4 & 6]); and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury ( § 245, subd. (a)(4) [count 7]). On November 20, 2018, defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Although it was understood that the victim (born in October 1991) was an adult at the time of the charged crimes, an amended information was filed on March 1, 2019, adding count 8, which alleged human trafficking of a minor for a sex act ( § 236.1, subd. (c)(1) ). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition entered on the same date, defendant pleaded no contest to count 8 of the amended information. In exchange for the plea, all other charges were dismissed and the maximum state prison term to be imposed was five years.

At the change of plea hearing, the trial court confirmed that defendant understood the nature of the charge against him, as well as the rights he was waiving by pleading no contest. With respect to the factual basis, the court asked whether defense counsel would "stipulate to a factual basis[.]" Defense counsel replied, "I do based on speaking with my client." Accepting the plea, the court stated, "Mr. Richardson has made a free, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his rights. Based upon that his [sic ] plea and the factual basis, I will find you guilty of the charge in Count 8 [human trafficking of a minor for sex] ...."

In the sentencing memorandum, the district attorney explained, "Despite the Defendant's lack of a significant criminal record, the People do believe that this is a prison case. The People conceded that the acts in this case did not merit 8 years in prison and thus purposefully offered Defendant a count that reduced his minimum exposure from 8 years to 5."⁵

At the sentencing hearing, the district attorney read a letter from CV detailing the " ‘fear, violence, manipulation, and degradation [defendant] put [her] through.’ " CV urged the court to give defendant the " ‘maximum possible sentence.’ " CV's mother also testified about the pain and anguish of not knowing CV's whereabouts. CV's mother explained that, besides her daughter's physical wounds, CV struggled with "PTSD, depression, and anxiety." Defense counsel argued that defendant was a good candidate for probation given the facts that he had no prior convictions, was 29 years old, and had been gainfully employed in the past. The court also heard from defendant, who told the court that he should have known better, he was disappointed in himself, and he was "sorry for what [CV] ... went through."

At the close of the testimony, the court stated that "the seriousness of the offense is so extreme and the victim impact [is] so extreme that the Court can't really justify probation based on the criteria" it was required to consider. When the court stated that it was a significant factor that "the victim was under 18" years old, the district attorney immediately clarified, "No, she wasn't, your Honor." The district attorney explained the victim was "27" years old⁶ and the plea had been offered "in order to reduce the count from [the] eight-year minimum triad." Following the...