30 Cal. App. 5th 989
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Markece Chatman was convicted by a jury of pandering (Pen. Code §266i(a)(1)) and pimping based mainly on testimony of a prostitute ("Antoinette"), inconsistent statements, corroborating text messages, and a letter from defendant asking a third party to backdate/attribute texts.
- Antoinette left Sacramento with Chatman, traveled through Bay Area cities, worked as a prostitute while Chatman posted ads, provided clothes/condoms, collected her earnings, and exercised control including physical violence and threats.
- She gave most or all of her prostitution proceeds to Chatman; texts on her phone documented prostitution transactions and arrangements.
- After she fled, Chatman sent a letter from jail asking a woman in Texas to sign an affidavit claiming she (not Chatman) had sent texts to Antoinette.
- Chatman did not testify or present evidence at trial. On appeal he argued instructional error (relating to pandering when victim already was a prostitute) and ineffective assistance for failing to seek different instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction on pandering required modification when the alleged victim was already a prostitute | Prosecution: standard CALCRIM No.1151 correctly states elements for §266i(a)(1); no extra proof required that victim "become" a prostitute | Chatman: jury should have been instructed (or counsel should have sought instruction) distinguishing Zambia and requiring a change in the prostitute’s business model/working relationships for pandering | Court: No instructional error; §266i(a)(1) (procure for prostitution) does not require proof of becoming a prostitute or a wholesale change in business model; CALCRIM was adequate |
| Whether People v. Zambia controls subdivisions (a)(1) prosecutions | N/A | Chatman: Zambia’s analysis of “to become a prostitute” applies and requires proof of future change | Court: Zambia analyzed §266i(a)(2); its “become” focus is inapplicable to (a)(1); Zambia does not require a substantial business-model change |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a different instruction | N/A | Chatman: counsel was constitutionally deficient for not requesting clarifying jury instructions based on Zambia | Court: No ineffectiveness—requested modification was inaccurate or unnecessary; counsel’s performance adequate |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support pandering conviction given victim’s prior involvement in prostitution | Prosecution: evidence (texts, money transfer, control, recruitment/advertising) sufficed | Chatman: prior prostitution status negates pandering unless business changed | Court: Evidence showed procurement/assistance and control facilitating prostitution; prior status is not a bar to conviction under (a)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zambia, 51 Cal.4th 965 (analysis of §266i(a)(2) and the meaning of "to become a prostitute")
- People v. Posey, 32 Cal.4th 193 (standard of de novo review for claimed instructional error)