People v. Washington CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Washington's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but

seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel presented no

argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error, listing as

possible but not arguable issues, whether the evidence supported Washington's pimping

3 conviction. We granted Washington permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has

not responded.

The crime of pimping is committed by someone "who, knowing another person is

a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings

or proceeds of the person's prostitution … or who solicits or receives compensation for

soliciting for the person." (§ 266h, subd. (a).) Here, the evidence summarized above was

sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Washington knew that Sieck worked as a

prostitute and derived some of his support or maintenance from Sieck's earnings as a

prostitute.

We have concluded our independent review of the record and find no other

reasonably arguable issues.…