People v. Nettles CA6

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Daniel Jamin Nettles, Sr. appeals after a jury found him guilty of pimping a minor over the age of 16 (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (b)(1)),1 procuring a minor over the age of 16 for prostitution (§ 266i, subd. (b)(1)), pimping an adult (§ 266h, subd. (a)), and human trafficking a person under the age of 18 (§ 236.1, subd. (c)). Eden Doe was the alleged victim in the three counts involving a minor, while Mia Doe was the alleged victim in the count of pimping an adult. Defendant was sentenced to an eight-year prison term for human trafficking, with a consecutive one-year four-month prison term for pimping an adult. The terms for the other two offenses were stayed pursuant to section 654.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury on human trafficking pursuant to a version of CALCRIM No. 1243 that incorporated post- offense amendments to section 236.1. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that Mia Doe was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration, and that the instructional errors…