People v. Middleton CA4/2, E063416

Defendant Demetrius Middleton was convicted by a jury of pimping (Pen. Code §266h) and pandering (Pen. Code §266i(a)(1)) after police found Allison LaFountain in a hotel room linked to online escort advertisements and recovered advertising records, a notebook with rates/contacts, phones, and large amounts of cash.
Undercover officer arranged a "date" with the woman from backpage.com/myredbook.com ads; the woman identified as "Ari"/Allison answered the hotel room door visibly upset; evidence linked defendant to the ads and a phone contact labeled “Daddy.”
Police seized $7,360 from defendant’s vehicle and $360 on his person; invoices for ads contained defendant’s name/aliases and addresses linked to him or his family.
Defense: Middleton said he paid for the woman’s travel and hotel to help her quit drugs, denied posting ads or controlling her, and claimed she had access to his phone/contacts; he also disputed that money was payment to him for pimping.
Procedural: Defendant sought to discharge retained counsel on the second day of trial after jury selection; the trial court denied the request and proceeded. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive middle terms with one sentence stayed under §654; he appealed claiming denial of substitution of retained counsel and insufficiency of evidence for pandering.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Trial court denial of request to discharge retained counsel	State: Court properly refused substitution because trial had started, parties were ready, and substitution would require an indefinite continuance prejudicing orderly process	Middleton: Court applied Marsden and wrongly denied his Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of choice; he had an attorney ready to step in	Denial affirmed: court properly balanced defendant’s right against disruption; defendant did not show a counsel ready to proceed and request came after trial began, so denial was not an abuse of discretion
2. Sufficiency of evidence for pandering (§266i(a)(1))	State: Substantial circumstantial evidence showed defendant procured/persuaded/encouraged LaFountain to engage in prostitution (ads, contact labeled “Daddy,” cash, travel/hotel payments, text messages)	Middleton: Evidence showed only assistance or collaboration after she was already a prostitute, not persuasion to become one	Conviction affirmed: §266i(a)(1) covers procuring prostitutes (including active prostitutes); evidence permitted reasonable inference defendant persuaded/encouraged/assisted her to work in Southern California

People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (procedure for defendant complaints about appointed counsel; courts often excuse prosecutor during inquiry)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice)
People v. Maciel, 57 Cal.4th 482 (2013) (limitations on substitution of retained counsel; balancing against disruption)
People v. Ortiz, 51 Cal.3d 975 (1990) (discusses right to retain/discharge counsel and limits based on orderly administration of justice)
People v. Zambia, 51 Cal.4th 965 (2011) (pandering statutes reach encouragement/procuring of active prostitutes)