People v. Leonard CA4/1
228 Cal. App. 4th 465
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Leonard and Walser were convicted of pimping, pandering, and assault; Leonard also convicted of making a criminal threat.
- A third amended information added a serious felony conviction and a strike prior against Leonard; the record lacks an explicit order approving leave to amend.
- The court arraigned Leonard and codefendants on the third amended information roughly a month after filing, without a stated leave-to-amend order.
- On appeal, Leonard challenges the amended information filing, sufficiency of evidence, unanimity instruction, expert pimping culture testimony, cross-examination, and 654 sentencing issues.
- The court modified Leonard’s judgment to strike the 667.5(b) prison prior and affirmed Walser’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to arraign on amended info | Leonard argues no leave order exists to file the amendment. | Leonard asserts nullity or improper filing of third amended information. | Amended information filed with presumed leave; jurisdiction lacking explicit record does not invalidate. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault and pandering | Evidence supports assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and pandering. | Evidence insufficient or improperly tied to acts. | Evidence sufficient; acts were connected and ongoing; supports both convictions. |
| Unanimity requirement for pandering | Continuous conduct theory obviates unanimity requirement. | Unanimity needed if multiple discrete acts. | No unanimity instruction required; pandering can be ongoing continuous conduct. |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on pimping culture | Detective Hunter’s testimony aided understanding of pimping dynamics. | Testimony impermissibly invaded jury function or commented on guilt. | Admission was harmless; error, if any, did not prejudice given overwhelming evidence. |
| Section 654 stays for assaults and threats | Concurrent punishment should be stayed where offenses are part of a single course. | Apply 654 to stay sentences for related offenses. | 654 does not apply to Leonard’s assault/threat because pandering ceased; Walser similarly not stayed where separate acts occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valladoli, 13 Cal.4th 590 (1996) (leave to amend information; discretion of trial court)
- People v. Lettice, 221 Cal.App.4th 139 (2013) (requires exercise of discretion to amend; silent record caution)
- People v. Loggins, 132 Cal.App.2d 736 (1955) (presumption of regular filing when record silent)
- People v. Brower, 92 Cal.App.2d 562 (1949) (amendment without leave; potential nullity discussed)
- People v. Tindall, 24 Cal.4th 767 (2000) (forfeiture for failure to object when court errors in amendment; jurisdictional nuance)
- Dell v. Beamon, 232 Cal.App.3d 248 (1991) (continuous course of conduct for pimping/pandering)
- People v. White, 89 Cal.App.3d 143 (1979) (pandering as ongoing offense; procuring as continuous)
- People v. Napoles, 104 Cal.App.4th 108 (2002) (evidence of ongoing pandering; uniqueness of charges)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (2011) (no improper opinion on guilt; expert testimony bounds)