(Super. Ct. No. 10F00343)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Edward Leonard Watkins and acquaintance Jaquann Garrett were pimps. One underage girl who Garrett pimped was Faith. Faith would prostitute herself in Oakland and Stockton, and it was Garrett who encouraged her, dropped her off at the streets where she prostituted herself, and took half her earnings. Sometimes defendant and two other prostitutes named Kream and Cherry were with Garrett and Faith in the car. Kream and Cherry also prostituted themselves on the streets of Oakland, and they gave their earnings to defendant. On one occasion (resulting in the charged acts), they all took defendant's car to Sacramento where Faith, Kream, and Cherry were going to prostitute themselves on Watt Avenue and defendant and Garrett and would "get [the] money." Later that day, Faith, Kream, and Cherry used a motel room defendant had rented for prostitution. Defendant and Garrett were arrested in the parking lot of the motel.
Defendant was charged with both pimping and pandering.*fn1 A jury found defendant guilty of pimping Faith (on a theory he aided and abetted Garrett), pandering Kream, and attempting to pimp Kream.
Defendant appeals from the resulting conviction, raising contentions relating to the instructions and his presentence credits. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm.
The Giving Of CALCRIM No. 375
Did Not Affect Defendant's Substantial Rights
The court instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 375, which allowed the jury to consider evidence of defendant's uncharged acts of pimping or pandering Kream and Faith in other jurisdictions to infer his intent to pimp in this case or his motive to commit the offenses in this case.*fn2 Defendant raises two contentions with respect this instruction. One, he contends the instruction was not supported by substantial evidence in violation of his federal constitutional rights because there was no evidence defendant pandered Kream in other jurisdictions. Two, he contends the instruction incorrectly implied there was prior-act evidence defendant aided and abetted Garrett's pimping of Faith, also in violation of his federal constitutional rights. Defendant's contentions lack merit because his substantial rights were not affected by this instruction.
Defendant did not object to this instruction in the trial court, so the only way he can raise these contentions on appeal is if his "'substantial rights . . . were affected thereby.' Substantial rights are affected if the error 'result[s] in a miscarriage of justice, [i.e.,] making it reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.'" ...