P. v. Davis

Filed 7/25/06 P. v. Davis CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Modified and affirmed.

Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Christopher T. Davis.

Marks & Brooklier and Donald B. Marks for Defendant and Appellant Jill Ellen McGrath.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and Lisa J. Brault, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

Christopher Thomas Davis (Davis) and Jill Ellen McGrath (McGrath) appeal from the judgment.

In a jury trial, Davis was convicted of four counts of pimping (Pen Code, § 266h, subd. (a); counts 5, 7, 11 & 16),[1] four counts of pandering by procuring (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1); counts 6, 8, 12 & 17), two counts of possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); counts 13 & 20) and possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 14). For Davis, the trial court imposed an aggregate term in state prison of three years.[2]

During the same jury trial, McGrath was convicted of eight counts of pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a); counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16 & 18), eight counts of pandering by procuring (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1); counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17 & 19), possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 20) and possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 14). As to McGrath, the trial court found true an on-bail allegation with respect to counts 16, 17, 18, and 19. (§ 12022.1.) For McGrath, the trial court imposed an aggregate term in state prison of six years four months.

Davis contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of pandering; (2) the trial court committed Crawford error (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford)); (3) the trial court erred by permitting multiple convictions for counts 13, 14, and 20, the possession of a controlled substance and dangerous drug offenses; and (4) using section 1203.065 to impose a mandatory state prison term denied Davis equal protection and the state term imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

McGrath contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions of pimping and pandering; (2) the trial court should have granted the motion to quash the search warrant; and (3) there was Brady error (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady)).

With the exception of Davis's claim of multiple convictions, we find the contentions to be unpersuasive. We will affirm the judgment as to McGrath and modify Davis's judgment to vacate his conviction in count 20, and then affirm Davis's judgment, as modified.

THE FACTS

We view the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.)

1. The November 20, 2003 Search Warrant

Redondo Beach Police Officer David Taneman (Detective Taneman) testified that shortly before November 20, 2003, the Long Beach Police Department's vice unit contacted him about a Redondo Beach escort service. Detective Taneman used a department computer to view the escort service's Web site, â€