P. v. Cortez

Filed 5/10/06 P. v. Cortez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Frank

F. Fasel, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Richard A. Levy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Graciela Aquinaga Cortez.

George L. Schraer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Daniel Parra.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil P. Gonzalez, Ronald A. Jakob, Warren P. Robinson, and Garrett Beaumont, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

This case is about sex, or more precisely the implied promises and expectations of sex that characterize modern day escort services. Appellant Daniel Parra owned and operated the Ambrosia escort agency, and appellant Graciela Cortez, better known as Elizabeth Nava, was his most profitable escort. She was also Parra's girlfriend from time to time. The jury found they conspired to lure clients into believing they would be getting sex, and then departed with their clients' money if they tried to turn their expectations into reality. On several occasions, Parra used force or intimidation during the scheme, and once he beat a client to death with a flashlight. Alas, appellants were convicted not only of conspiracy, burglary and robbery, but assault, felony murder and special circumstances murder.

The primary issue on appeal, as it was at trial, is whether appellants intended to scam their clients by obtaining their money under the false pretense they would be getting sex, or whether appellants operated a legitimate business that called for the use of force when -- through no fault of appellants -- their clients crossed the line and wanted more than a striptease when they hired Nava. We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the scam theory, which is the primary basis for appellants' convictions. We also find appellants' convictions are legally sound in all other challenged respects. Accordingly, with the exception of a minor, undisputed sentencing issue, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

* * *

Parra advertised for Ambrosia both in newspapers and on the Internet. Typically, the ads described the escorts' physical and ethnic characteristics, as well as the services they purportedly provided. One ad stated: â€