X hits on this document

43 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 23

INTRODUCTION

Michael Barrett Cason (defendant) asserts that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support three of his four convictions.  We will affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was on probation in two prior felony cases when, on April 28, 2008, the District Attorney of Riverside County filed an information charging him with two counts each of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, counts 1 & 2),1 and pandering (§ 266i, counts 3 & 4).  As to pimping, the information alleged that defendant willfully and unlawfully solicited Jane Doe #1 (Q.) and Jane Doe #2 (P.) to be prostitutes and lived and derived support from the earnings of their prostitution (counts 1 & 2).  As to pandering, the information alleged, in the language of subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the statute, that defendant procured Q. and P. “for the purpose of prostitution and by promises, threats, violence and by device and scheme, cause, induce, persuade and encourage [each of them] to become a prostitute” (counts 3 & 4).  The information further alleged that a year earlier, on April 27, 2007, defendant had been convicted of making criminal threats (§ 422), a serious and violent felony within the meaning of the three strikes law.  (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).)2

(  All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

(  Although we do not have the records, the two prior felonies for which defendant was on probation were apparently the section 422 “strike,” and a section 273a, willful injury to a child conviction.

Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 05:17:36 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs101
Words5658

Comments