Best Defender Bytes:

February 13, 2014

PIMP SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN STATE PRISON FOR TRAFFICKING 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND HAVING SEX WITH HER AFTER MEETING THROUGH SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE

Filed under: California Defense Attorney — fayarfa @ 8:55 pm

SANTA ANA - A pimp was sentenced Friday, Feb. 7, 2014, to five years in state prison and mandatory lifetime sex offender registration for trafficking a 16-year-old girl and having sex with her after meeting through a social networking website. Donshawn Eugene Miller, 30, San Diego, pleaded guilty to the Court to one felony count each of human trafficking, pimping a minor, pandering with a minor over 16 years old by procuring, unlawful sexual intercourse, pimping, and pandering.

Circumstances of the Case
Miller is a pimp/human trafficker who exploits women and/or children for financial gain. In August 2013, Miller directed his primary prostitute to set up a meeting with 16-year-old Jane Doe, whom she met through a social networking website.

Between Aug. 10, 2013, and Aug. 23, 2013, Miller picked up Jane Doe, drove her to a motel room, and had unlawful sexual intercourse with the victim. Miller then had his primary prostitute show Jane Doe the prostitution routes in Anaheim, prices to charge sex purchasers for various sex acts, and posted advertisements containing sexually explicit photos of Jane Doe on a website known for prostitution. Miller pimped Jane Doe and took the money the victim made from engaging in commercial sex acts.

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on Aug. 23, 2013, an Anaheim Police Department (APD) officer spoke to Jane Doe on the street and began investigating Miller. On Sept. 2, 2013, APD arrested Miller in Hemet.

 

This case was investigated by APD and Deputy District Attorney Brad Schoenleben of the HEAT Unit prosecuted this case.                                               Proposition 35 and HEAT
In November 2012, California’s anti-human trafficking Proposition 35 (Prop 35) was enacted in California with 81 percent of the vote, and over 82 percent of the vote in Orange County, to increase the penalty for human trafficking, particularly in cases involving the trafficking of a minor by force.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Human Exploitation And Trafficking (HEAT) Unit targets perpetrators who sexually exploit and traffic women and underage girls for financial gain, including pimps, panderers, and human traffickers. The HEAT Unit uses a tactical plan called PERP: Prosecution, to bring justice for victims of human trafficking and hold perpetrators responsible using Prop 35; Education, to provide law enforcement training to properly handle human trafficking and pandering cases; Resources from public-private partnerships to raise public awareness about human trafficking and provide assistance to the victims; and Publicity, to inform the public and send a message to human traffickers that this crime cannot be perpetrated without suffering severe consequences. 

Under the law, human trafficking is described as depriving or violating the personal liberty of another person with the intent to effect a violation of pimping or pandering. Pimping is described as knowingly deriving financial support in whole or in part from the proceeds of prostitution.  Pandering is the act of persuading or procuring an individual to become a prostitute, or procuring and/or arranging for a person work in a house of prostitution.

Penal Code Section 236.1 defines:

(1) “Coercion” includes any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process; debt bondage; or providing and facilitating the possession of any controlled substance to a person with the intent to impair the person’s judgment.

(2) “Commercial sex act” means sexual conduct on account of which anything of value is given or received by any person.

(3) “Deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another” includes substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person, under circumstances where the person receiving or apprehending the threat reasonably believes that it is likely that the person making the threat would carry it out.

(4) “Duress” includes a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution sufficient to cause a reasonable person to acquiesce in or perform an act which he or she would otherwise not have submitted to or performed; a direct or implied threat to destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess any actual or purported passport or immigration document of the victim; or knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or possessing any actual or purported passport or immigration document of the victim.

(5) “Forced labor or services” means labor or services that are performed or provided by a person and are obtained or maintained through force, fraud, duress, or coercion, or equivalent conduct that would reasonably overbear the will of the person.

(6) “Great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury.

(7) “Minor” means a person less than 18 years of age.

(8) “Serious harm” includes any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor, services, or commercial sexual acts in order to avoid incurring that harm.

(i) The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the trafficker or agents of the trafficker, and any handicap or disability of the victim, shall be factors to consider in determining the presence of “deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another,” “duress,” and “coercion” as described in this section.

Orange County District AttorneyCase # 13NF3021 / February 10, 2014

 

 

 

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress