P. v. Villapando CA4/3

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 10, 2013
DocketG046110
StatusUnpublished

This text of P. v. Villapando CA4/3 (P. v. Villapando CA4/3) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
P. v. Villapando CA4/3, (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Filed 6/10/13 P. v. Villapando CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G046110

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10WF0127)

VENSON VILLAPANDO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Reversed. Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Meagan J. Beale and Sharon L. Rhodes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * INTRODUCTION Defendant Venson Villapando appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count each of attempting to commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years and of attempting contact with a minor with the intent to commit a lewd act upon the minor. Villapando argues the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the defense of entrapment. He also argues the prosecution wrongfully failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, in violation of Penal Code section 1054.1 and Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) We reverse. For the reasons we will explain, there was substantial evidence of entrapment admitted at trial. Therefore, the trial court erred by failing to give an instruction on entrapment to the jury, notwithstanding Villapando‘s trial counsel‘s failure to request such an instruction. The court‘s error was not harmless because a more favorable result for Villapando was reasonably probable had an entrapment instruction been provided. The jury, as the trier of fact, should have received the entrapment instruction and reached its verdict with that instruction in mind. Because we reverse for a new trial on this ground, we need not reach Villapando‘s other contention of error.

FACTS I. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION‘S EVIDENCE On July 9, 2009, Detective Alan Caouette of the Huntington Beach Police Department, who was assigned to the special investigations bureau responsible for prostitution, pimping, and pandering cases, posted an advertisement on an online Internet-based advertisement board known as Craigslist. Caouette‘s advertisement was posted in the ―casual encounters‖ section of the Craigslist Web site (the advertisement)

2 and bore the heading, ―looking to get by in hard time – w4m (hb).‖ Caouette testified that based on his training and experience, the term ―w4m‖ referred to ―women for men‖ in the ―world of prostitution.‖ He testified ―hb‖ stood for the City of Huntington Beach. The body of the advertisement read: ―looking to have a good time are u :).‖ Caouette received over 100 responses to the advertisement, including one from Villapando on July 9, 2009 at 6:29 p.m., in which he stated, ―hey i want to have fun... what do you have in mind... anything is possible.‖ Within a minute, Caouette responded to Villapando, stating, ―im only 13 and need a $100 so if still interested let me 1 know, jess.‖ We set forth below the e-mail communications exchanged between Villapando and Caouette, and the text messages exchanged between Villapando and Detective Brian Smith, who took over communicating with Villapando later in the investigation; both Caouette and Smith used the undercover identity of ―Jess‖ in these communications. All grammatical and spelling errors were contained in the original 2 messages. A. July 9, 2009 E-mail Messages Between Villapando and Caouette From 6:44 p.m. to 8:04 p.m. on July 9, 2009, Villapando and Caouette exchanged the following e-mail messages. Villapando: ―send me a pic and a number... why do you need $100?‖ Caouette: ―cuz i wanta buy something,, i only have text minutes I need to pay my bill... .‖ Villapando: ―what are going to do for me? to earn that $100.‖ Caouette: ―what u want,, ill do most anything.‖ Villapando: ―where you located at? where do you want to meet? r u trying to set me up? for my safety.‖ 1 Caouette testified that he established the undercover identity on the Internet of a 13-year-old female named Jessie Browne, for the purpose of investigating cases such as this one. 2 Caouette testified that he used language that a 13 year old would use, including misspelled words and abbreviations.

3 Caouette: ―well seeing im 13 i cant drive so i would need to be picked up,, by my house is cool i can go whereever,,, and NO im not setting u up ,, .‖ Villapando: ―where do you live? r u down to fck?‖ Caouette: ―sure are u down to give me a 100 bucks ,, and can u pickme up i cant drive.‖ Villapando: ―im sure...i promise, im a man of my word.‖ Caouette: ―ok i can do it i guess, but we need a condom cuz i cant get into trouble,, whats the plan ,, do i need to walk to u.‖ Villapando: ―well tell me where you want to meet and i will pick you up... just go up to me, i will get out of my car and i will where my key chain around my neck ITS BLACK WITH LAKERS LOGO AND I WILL BE WEARING A BLACK ANGELS HAT WITH WHITE NIKE SHOES, go up to me and say hi... will take it from there.... but you need to tell me where to meet.‖ Caouette: ―ok,, what do i call u ,, and what should i wear and can i shower first ,, and where we going.‖ Villapando: ―just say ‗hey dude do you have a cigaratte‘ where what ever you want... i [3] was think we should get a hotel room and chill for like an hour... im only 22!!! tell me where to meet you so when your done showering im already there.‖ Caouette: ―hotel room, wow ,, maybe i can shower there if u want.. .‖ Villapando: ―yeah we can shower together... so where do you want me to pick you up?‖ Caouette: ―where do u live so i can give ur directions.‖ Villapando: ―fullerton.‖ Caouette: ―shit my mom just cam home,,gota go ill be back.‖ Villapando: ―ok well im going to play basketball, for like an hour... if you want to do it tonight im still down or tomorrow afternoon... shoot me an email.‖ B.

July 10, 11, 14, and 25, 2009 E-mail Messages Exchanged Between Villapando and Caouette At 9:20 p.m. on July 10, 2009, Caouette reestablished contact with Villapando by sending the following e-mail: ―eyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,,hiiiiiiiiiiii hows was

3 Villapando was 25 years old at the time.

4 the game.‖ From 9:28 p.m. until 10:13 p.m., they exchanged the following e-mail messages. Villapando: ―It was cool I played til 1030... So what‘s up?‖ Caouette: ―Nodda.‖ Villapando: ―If you still want to hang out... Tell me where to meet you at.‖ Caouette: ―im not wanting to hang out in need to make some money,, silli.‖ Villapando: ―Well make that money then... You have to let me know now where to meet.‖ Caouette: ―yes later ok.‖ Villapando: ―Well I got stuff to do today... But hit me up n we‘ll see! Right now would be the best time.‖ On July 11, Caouette received three e-mail messages from Villapando. At 7:13 a.m., Villapando‘s e-mail stated: ―so when are we going to meet up?‖ At 3:28 p.m., Villapando wrote: ―hey wats up? im really bored.....‖ At 11:33 p.m., Villapando wrote: ―Hey I‘m off work today! Just hitting u up to see if u want tmake some money? I have $150 that can be urs... Hit me up.‖ Caouette did not respond to Villapando that day. On July 14, Caouette sent an e-mail message to Villapando, stating: ―ILL BE BACK ON THURS HAD TO GO OUT OF TOWN WITH GRANDMA.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
People v. Barraza
591 P.2d 947 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. Breverman
960 P.2d 1094 (California Supreme Court, 1998)
People v. Benford
345 P.2d 928 (California Supreme Court, 1959)
People v. Salas
127 P.3d 40 (California Supreme Court, 2006)
People v. Watson
990 P.2d 1031 (California Supreme Court, 2000)
People v. Martinez
224 P.3d 877 (California Supreme Court, 2010)
People v. Federico
191 Cal. App. 4th 1418 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)
People v. Sojka
196 Cal. App. 4th 733 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
P. v. Villapando CA4/3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-v-villapando-ca43-calctapp-2013.