Best Defender Bytes:

May 21, 2014

MAN CONVICTED OF PIMPING 19-YEAR-OLD WOMAN IN GARDEN GROVE

Filed under: California Defense Attorney — fayarfa @ 5:37 am

SANTA ANA – A man was convicted today of pimping a 19-year-old woman in Garden Grove. Trey Dimaria Bailey, 22, Oakland, pleaded guilty to a court offer to one felony count each pimping and pandering by receiving or giving money with a prior conviction for armed robbery in 2010. He is expected to be sentenced to four years in state prison at his sentencing July 21, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. in Department C-57, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana.

Circumstances of the Case

Bailey is a pimp who exploits women for financial gain. Pimps often establish rigid rules that their victims are expected to follow including setting daily quotas that the victims are expected to fulfill. The victims are required to turn over all payment they receive for sex acts from sex purchasers to their pimp.

Bailey met 19-year-old Jane Doe in Northern California and instructed her to begin working as a prostitute for him. The defendant drove the victim to Orange County to commercially sexually exploit her, and posted advertisements on websites known for prostitution offering sex acts with Jane Doe.

Bailey imposed rules that Jane Doe was forced to follow, including requiring her to give the defendant all of the money she was paid for sex acts. The defendant sent the victim text messages instructing her to make more money and referring to her in derogatory terms indicating that she worked for him.

On May 18, 2014, officers from the Garden Grove Police Department (GGPD)performed a traffic stop on Bailey’s vehicle. The officers became suspicious of the defendant upon determining that the defendant was on probation and observing women’s clothes and shoes in the vehicle, which belonged to Jane Doe.

Jane Doe was located nearby on a street corner and Bailey was arrested at the scene. 

This case was investigated by GGPD and Deputy District Attorney Brad Schoenleben of the HEAT Unit is prosecuting 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 Attorney / Case # 13WF1517 / May 19, 2014

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress