Opinion
D070950
12-29-2016
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TAVARIS DANIELS MIMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General and Barry Carlton, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 14NF3903) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General and Barry Carlton, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Tavaris Daniels Mims of human trafficking (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (b); count 1); pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a); count 2); pandering (§ 266i, subd. (a); count 3); assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 4); making a criminal threat (§ 422, subd. (a); count 5); preventing or dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1; count 6); and participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 7). The jury found true the following special allegations: Mims committed counts 1 through 6 for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (gang benefit enhancement) (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); he personally used a deadly weapon (a knife) in connection with count 5 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); and he acted maliciously and used or threatened to use force while dissuading a witness in connection with count 6 (§ 136.1, subd. (c)).
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Mims admitted four prison prior allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). However, the court struck the punishment for these priors.
The court sentenced Mims to an aggregate term of 24 years to life, which included a determinate sentence of 17 years based upon the middle term of 14 years for count 1 with three consecutive years for the gang benefit enhancement plus an indeterminate term of seven years to life for count 6. For count 4, the court imposed a three-year middle term with a five-year gang benefit enhancement to run concurrent to count 6. The court stayed sentences for counts 2, 3, 5, and 7 pursuant to section 654.
Mims contends (1) the admission of case-specific statements from certain police records through a gang expert resulted in a prejudicial violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requiring reversal of the gang benefit enhancements; and (2) the court should have stayed punishment for count 4 assault with a deadly weapon, pursuant to section 654 because count 4 was part of count 1, human trafficking, which Mims contends was a continuing offense. We disagree with these contentions and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
A
The victim met Mims at a party in her apartment in February 2014. They started talking, immediately hit it off, and right away became involved romantically. According to the victim, Mims was like prince charming. He said nice things and took care of the victim. The victim loved Mims and considered him to be her boyfriend. He moved into her apartment and they lived together until June 1, 2014.
The victim engaged in prostitution prior to meeting Mims and admitted she was a drug addict. Mims said he wanted to help her with prostitution by protecting her and holding the money she earned. He said he would save it for their future together.
The victim knew Mims was a proud member of the Watergate Crips (Watergate) gang. He was known by the nicknames of "Instigate" and "Gater." Her apartment became a hangout place for other Watergate members, who used it daily. Mims asked the victim to leave the room when he talked to Watergate members about business. The victim was not allowed to talk to Watergate members.
The victim conducted acts of prostitution almost every day and handed the money to Mims before she conducted the act. When she met regular clients, whom she saw before she met Mims, at her apartment, Mims would wait outside or in the living room. She also gave Mims the money she earned from those regular clients.
Mims encouraged the acts of prostitution and posted advertisements for the victim's services on the Internet. A Watergate member and his girlfriend helped photograph the victim in lingerie to advertise her services. Mims set up an online profile for her and he communicated with potential clients (tricks) to arrange dates. He would tell the victim where to meet the tricks.
Mims posted online advertisements for the victim to perform sexual services with which she was not comfortable. When she objected and said she did not want to do those things, Mims said it "was more money." Mims set the prices for the sexual acts offered and required her to earn at least $100 per night. If she did not make her quota, Mims would become angry and violent. He would yell and hit her, often in front of his friends in her apartment.
She walked the tracks, which are streets where prostitutes pick up tricks, at the direction of Mims. She would walk, take a taxi with Mims, or get a ride from one of Mims's friends to get to the tracks. Mims took money from her acts of prostitution and gave a portion of it to his friend for driving.
Mims controlled the finances in their relationship. The victim immediately gave Mims the money paid by the tricks. She never held back money because she was afraid he would hit her. Mims often questioned her about how much money she made. He made her strip so he could search her for money. Not only did he take the money the victim earned from acts of prostitution, but he also carried and controlled the debit cards she had for her Social Security benefits.
At one point, the victim came into contact with another pimp who talked her into cooperating with him and his prostitutes by giving him money from her tricks. When Mims learned about this, he became very angry. Mims had the victim call the pimp and ask him to take her to the track. When the pimp arrived, Mims and his friends barricaded him into a cul-de-sac, threatened him, and robbed him. As they did so, Mims and his Watergate friends yelled out, "Watergate Crips."
Over time, Mims became increasingly violent. He hit the victim on a regular basis. He hit her arms or thighs with a big metal flashlight and slapped or swatted her thighs and arms with the blade of a knife. He beat her and pulled her hair multiple times both in private and in front of his Watergate friends.
Mims confronted the victim about a number he found in her phone. When she said she did not know the number, he came "full force towards [her] and tackled [her] down to the ground" and choked her. He was angry with her all day. When she was getting ready for a trick, he stood in front of her and hit her on the arm with the flashlight saying, "Hurry up, bitch." After she went to take a shower, Mims busted through the door and started beating her on her body with the flashlight and calling her a "stupid bitch."
After the victim finished showering, she noticed there was no towel and asked Mims to bring her a towel. He yelled at her in front of his friends saying, "Just come out here naked, bitch, like you always do." The victim had to walk out naked in front of Mims's friends, a number of whom were members of Watergate.
Over time, the victim did not feel she was free to leave the relationship or to stop performing acts of prostitution. She was afraid Mims or Watergate members would kill her if she left.
The victim went to a pain specialist toward the beginning of May 2014 to get prescription pain medication for Mims to sell. When she called and told Mims she was unable to get the medication that he requested, he seemed fine and came to pick her up with a friend. However, when they arrived at her apartment, it was full of people and he asked her to wait in the bedroom. He asked everyone to "step out for about 15 minutes" saying, "I've got to handle something." He slapped her with full force across her face causing her to fall backward. He punched her on her arms and thighs and screamed at her calling her names for about 30 minutes.
At the end of May 2014 the victim got into an argument with Mims. The victim saw Mims leaving the apartment with another woman and giving her money. This upset the victim. She confronted Mims and they exchanged words. At some point during this argument, Mims got on top of the victim who was lying on a bed. He pressed the blade of his knife against her throat and said he was going to "fucking kill [her]." The victim thought he intended to kill her. The victim left the house that night and has feared for her life since that time.
When she later spoke to Mims by phone, Mims told her if she called the police he would kill her son, who lives in another city. Mims talked about what happens to snitches. He said a friend who snitched on the Watergate gang was murdered. The victim thought Mims was serious and had the ability to carry out his threat. Mims knew where her son lived. She had witnessed Mims being violent with other individuals, including breaking a woman's jaw. The straw that broke the camel's back in terms of their relationship was Mims's threat to kill her son.
Shortly thereafter, the victim ended up in a hospital and the police were called. The victim was reluctant, fearful, and very emotional when she was interviewed by police officers. She feared Mims would find her and kill her. Eventually, however, she provided the police with information consistent with her trial testimony about Mims's involvement with her prostitution and his beatings of her. The victim remains afraid that Watergate members will kill her for testifying against Mims.
When police officers went to the victim's apartment, they found Mims hiding in a bedroom closet. They found a knife on the bed matching the description provided by the victim. Other members of Watergate were present in the apartment when Mims was arrested.
B
Pierre Hasell, a member of Watergate, testified at trial. He was also in custody for human trafficking involving the victim because he helped Mims by driving the victim to the tracks for which he was paid. Hasell cooperated with the police in exchange for the hope of a reduced sentence. Hasell was pressured by other gang members not to testify against Mims, because Mims is a key figure in Watergate. Hasell believed he may be killed for testifying.
Hasell was jumped into the Watergate gang at age 15 after earning the trust of the gang. Members earn status in the gang by committing criminal activities. There is a hierarchy or ranking in the gang. A street soldier is at the bottom. A gangster or a "G" is someone who has "done it and [is] able to make calls." Hasell was considered low level, just above a street soldier. He would do anything expected to benefit the gang. He carried out acts of violence such as assaults and robberies.
Watergate's primary activities include robbery, drug dealing, and pimping. Selling women for sex is a profitable crime and a primary activity of Watergate. Guns are important to Watergate because they are outnumbered by rival gangs. Guns create intimidation for rivals. Watergate's primary goal is to earn money.
Loyalty is also important to Watergate. If a member is disloyal, it could result in the assault or death of the member. Members are also expected to pitch in money they earn for the gang. The more a member contributes financially and by committing crimes to benefit the gang, the better the member's status will be in Watergate.
Hasell identified Mims as an active member of Watergate from the time he met Mims in 2011. Mims had a middle to high status within the gang. Mims was known as someone who would do anything asked of him and as a good earner for Watergate.
Hasell did drugs with the victim and Mims at the victim's apartment, which was a general hangout for Watergate members. Members from Watergate used her apartment on a daily basis. Over time, Watergate controlled who had access to the victim's apartment and did not consider the victim's wishes. If Watergate members wanted to discuss Watergate business in the apartment, Mims asked the victim to leave the room.
Mims was involved in pimping the victim. Hasell testified Mims and the victim had a loving relationship at one point, but it turned violent. Hasell did not witness the violence. However, when Mims and the victim would argue, such as when she did not want to work, Mims would take her into a back room. She would emerge from the room crying and then go to work. Once Hasell saw Mims and the victim go into a bedroom with Mims carrying a flashlight. When they came out, the victim was crying and holding her arm. There were multiple times when the victim did not want to work as a prostitute and Mims would make her do so.
Hasell stated the victim was not free to leave Mims because there was always someone awake in the apartment. Hasell observed the victim was afraid of Mims and saw her shake in fear. Hasell was concerned she was going to make Mims mad because he knew Mims could be violent. The victim asked Hasell for help, but Hasell said he had to stay out of it because Mims was a fellow "homie" or gang member.
On cross-examination, Hasell stated the victim had mood swings, did drugs, and she would get violent. She would also lose things daily. He said the victim gave Mims her money to hold because she would lose it.
DISCUSSION
I
Gang Expert Testimony
Mims contends his gang enhancements should be reversed because they were based, in part, upon testimonial hearsay of a gang expert in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. We disagree and conclude, even if some portion of the expert's testimony could be construed as testimonial hearsay, any error was harmless. To begin, however, we summarize the testimony of the gang expert.
Section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) provides for sentencing enhancements when a person is "convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members."
A
1
During trial, Mims's attorney acknowledged the gang expert could testify about his expertise and training about gangs, but asked the court to "at least limit the hearsay that the expert can use." The court and counsel discussed the issue, including the fact the scope of gang expert testimony was pending before the Supreme Court. The court noted a gang expert was required to have some specific information related to the gang as opposed to repeating information from other people. However, the court noted authorities recognized gang experts need to be able to base their opinions on discussions with other gang members and other officers and on review of field interview cards (FI cards) and notices under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP) (§ 186.20 et seq.). (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 672, fn. 3 (Sanchez).) The court stated a gang expert can give testimony about how individuals act for the benefit of the gang, discuss gang tattoos, and other matters.
2
Investigator Catalin Panov was both a principal investigator for this case and the gang expert. He has been a police officer for 14 years. He received more than 100 hours of formal class training on gangs and gang investigations. He was assigned to the gang enforcement unit for three years investigating gang-related crimes. Thereafter, he was assigned to the street narcotics unit investigating drug sales, many of which involved gang members. He spent a lot of time in gang neighborhoods "interviewing gang members, their families, their neighbors." When he was selected to become an investigator for the vice unit, 20 to 30 percent of the human trafficking, pimping, and pandering investigations involved Crip gang members. He stated, "I've spent a lot of time surveilling these guys, talking to these guys, and staying up to date on the gang culture."
Panov has spoken with suspects and other individuals on the street as well as other gang experts. He has both formal and informal training specifically about Watergate and Crip gangs. He studied the history of Crip gangs, including Watergate. This included speaking with current and past members of Watergate as well as other investigators. He went to the area where Watergate started in the mid-1970's.
For his expert opinions, Panov stated he generally relies upon STEP notices (which notify a gang member or a suspected gang member he or she is associating with a gang engaged in gang activity), FI cards (documents containing information about an individual based on police interactions with an individual), and police reports. He is also familiar with gang tattoos having seen several thousand.
3
When the prosecutor began to question Panov regarding Watergate, Mims's counsel stipulated Watergate is a criminal street gang. Additionally, in front of the jury, Mims's counsel stated, "I'll stipulate he's also a Watergate Crip." The court advised the jury, "[a] stipulation is just what it sounds like, that the parties have agreed on certain facts to be true, which means you have to also accept them as true."
The prosecutor continued to question Panov about the information he reviewed related to Mims. Panov reviewed police documentation over the course of 20 years as well as information from Mims's mobile phone. Panov stated Mims was identified as a member of Watergate in the mid-1990's, at the age of 12. He was given STEP notices several times from 2006 through 2012. FI cards indicated Mims identified himself as a member of the Crips and he previously admitted in court he was an active participant of Watergate. He has a number of tattoos significant to Watergate. Panov, who attended trial and heard testimony from other witnesses, stated a number of individuals identified during trial were documented members of the Watergate gang.
While in custody on this case, Mims wrote letters to many different individuals using different Watergate references. He also participated in recorded phone calls in which he made references to gang culture and pimping culture.
Panov opined Mims was a participant in the Watergate criminal street gang during the relevant time period. He also opined pimping is one of the primary activities for Watergate.
In response to hypotheticals mirroring the facts of the case, Panov opined pimping, procuring an individual for prostitution, and depriving her of liberty would be committed in association with and for the benefit of Watergate. He also opined actions such as threatening an individual for disrespect, holding a knife to a woman's throat and threatening her life, or threatening the life of a woman's son if she were to cooperate with the police would be for the benefit of the Watergate gang. Instilling fear prevents the individual from reporting gang activities and makes the gang stronger.
B
After briefing was completed in this case, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665 holding, among other things, a gang expert may not "relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception." (Id. at p. 686.) We requested supplemental briefing regarding Sanchez's potential application to this appeal. Mims contends Sanchez applies and Panov's testimony was improperly "based on" inadmissible testimonial hearsay, specifically the STEP notices, information from FI cards, and information from Mims's prior court testimony. The People contend even if any testimony in this case involved inadmissible testimonial hearsay under Sanchez, its admission was harmless given the other evidence of Mims's gang involvement.
In Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at page 680, the Supreme Court explained, "a court addressing the admissibility of out-of-court statements must engage in a two-step analysis. The first step is a traditional hearsay inquiry: Is the statement one made out of court; is it offered to prove the truth of the facts it asserts; and does it fall under a hearsay exception? If a hearsay statement is being offered by the prosecution in a criminal case, and the Crawford [v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford)] limitations of unavailability, as well as cross-examination or forfeiture, are not satisfied, a second analytical step is required. Admission of such a statement violates the right to confrontation if the statement is testimonial hearsay."
The Sanchez court reaffirmed, "[g]ang experts ... can rely on background information accepted in their field of expertise under the traditional latitude given by the Evidence Code. They can rely on information within their personal knowledge, and they can give an opinion based on a hypothetical including case-specific facts that are properly proven. They may also rely on nontestimonial hearsay properly admitted under a statutory hearsay exception. What they cannot do is present, as facts, the content of testimonial hearsay statements. ... [O]nly when a prosecution expert relies upon, and relates as true, a testimonial statement would the fact asserted as true have to be independently proven to satisfy the Sixth Amendment." (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 685.)
"Testimonial statements are those made primarily to memorialize facts relating to past criminal activity, which could be used like trial testimony. Nontestimonial statements are those whose primary purpose is to deal with an ongoing emergency or some other purpose unrelated to preserving facts for later use at trial." (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 689; see People v. Dungo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 608, 619 ["First, to be testimonial the statement must be made with some degree of formality or solemnity. Second, the statement is testimonial only if its primary purpose pertains in some fashion to a criminal prosecution"].)
Under the facts presented in Sanchez, the Supreme Court concluded a gang expert's testimony relating case-specific information obtained from police reports was improper testimonial hearsay because the "hearsay information [was] gathered during an official investigation of a completed crime." (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 694.) The expert related the content of STEP notices retained by the police, which were signed by an officer under penalty of perjury and included the "defendant's biographical information, whom he was with, and what statements he made." The court concluded information from the STEP notices in that case were sufficiently formal to constitute testimonial hearsay. (Id. at pp. 696-697.) With regard to the FI cards, the court concluded they may be testimonial hearsay if the card was produced in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation. However, there was insufficient information for the Supreme Court to decide the matter in that case. (Id. at p. 697.)
In this case, Mims contends Panov improperly testified about and relied upon case-specific testimonial hearsay obtained from STEP notices, FI cards, and prior court-testimony by Mims. Panov testified in general he reviewed "nearly two decades' worth of police documentation, as well as photographs ... obtained from [Mims's] cell phone" regarding Mims's involvement with Watergate. He also listened to direct testimony from other witnesses during trial regarding Mims's involvement in Watergate and the defense stipulation to the fact that Watergate is a criminal street gang.
Panov stated he looked at several STEP notices given to Mims and identified the years they were issued. However, unlike in Sanchez, Panov did not relate hearsay information contained within those notices, only the fact the notices were given in three separate years. As such, we conclude Panov did not improperly relay testimonial hearsay evidence based on these cards.
With regard to the FI cards, Panov stated the cards included self-admissions by Mims of his membership in Watergate. However, as in Sanchez, the record does not contain sufficient information regarding the circumstances surrounding the preparation of those FI cards to determine if the statements contained therein were testimonial or nontestimonial.
Assuming, without deciding, the self-admissions of involvement with Watergate recorded in the FI cards as well as Mims's prior in-court testimony constituted testimonial hearsay, we nevertheless conclude any error in admitting this evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Rutterschmidt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661.)
Contrary to Mims's contention, reliance on testimonial hearsay does not necessarily disqualify an expert's opinion. "[O]nly when a prosecution expert relies upon, and relates as true, a testimonial statement would the fact asserted as true have to be independently proven to satisfy the Sixth Amendment. [¶] Any expert may still rely on hearsay in forming an opinion, and may tell the jury in general terms that he did so. Because the jury must independently evaluate the probative value of an expert's testimony, Evidence Code section 802 properly allows an expert to relate generally the kind and source of the 'matter' upon which his opinion rests. ... [¶] What an expert cannot do is relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception." (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 685-686.)
The self-admissions in the FI cards and Mims's prior testimony established only the fact that Mims was a member of Watergate and had been for a while. There was significant independent evidence corroborating this fact. This independent evidence included not only the admission by Mims's attorney that Mims was a Watergate member, but also testimony from the victim and Hasell. The victim knew Mims was a member of Watergate from the moment she met him. Hasell knew Mims for years as a mid- to high-ranking Watergate gang member.
"It is well settled that '[a]n admission of a fact made at the trial in open [c]ourt by the prisoner or his counsel may be properly considered by the jury.' " (People v. Peters (1950) 96 Cal.App.4th 671, 677, quoting People v. Garcia (1864) 25 Cal. 531, 534-535.) --------
Although "gang membership is not an element of the gang enhancement [citation], evidence of defendant's membership and commission of crimes [in connection with Watergate members] bolstered the prosecution's theory that he acted with intent to benefit his gang, an element it was required to prove." (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 698-699.) Here, in addition to independent corroborating evidence of Mims's membership with Watergate, there was direct evidence connecting Mims and his crimes to Watergate. The victim testified other members of Watergate assisted Mims in photographing the victim to post online advertisements for her prostitution services. Both the victim and Hasell testified Hasell drove Mims and the victim to locations where the victim performed prostitution services. Mims paid Hasell for driving with the victim's prostitution money. Hasell testified one of Watergate's primary activities was pimping, Mims was involved in pimping, and Mims was known as a good earner for the gang, meaning he kicked money back to the gang.
Based upon a hypothetical scenario mirroring the independent evidence established during trial, Panov opined each of the crimes charged in this case was committed in association with and for the benefit of the Watergate gang.
In light of the overwhelming independent evidence in this case, it is beyond reasonable doubt that exclusion of the expert's testimony based upon information obtained from the FI cards or Mims's prior testimony would not have affected the outcome of the trial.
II
Count 4 Sentence
Mims challenges his sentence for assault with a deadly weapon (count 4), which the court ran concurrently to his sentence for preventing or dissuading a witness by force or threat (count 6). Mims contends the assault with a deadly weapon (count 4) was part of a continuing offense, human trafficking (count 1), and he may not be punished for both crimes under section 654.
Section 236.1, subdivision (b), punishes an individual who "deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of" certain sex offenses such as pimping (§ 266h) and pandering (§ 266i). Mims contends human trafficking under this statute is a continuing offense because " '[d]eprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another' involves substantial and sustained restriction of another's liberty accomplished through force, fear, ..., 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." (§ 236.1, subd. (h)(3).) He contends the assault with a deadly weapon was one of several instances of using violence, force, and fear to accomplish the substantial and sustained restriction of the victim's liberty to accomplish pimping and pandering.
Section 654 bars multiple punishment for convictions arising from " 'the same act or course of conduct.' " (People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 336-337.) Although a single act or course of conduct may result in multiple convictions (§ 954), "the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited" by section 654. (Correa, supra, at p. 337.) "Whether the provision 'applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. [Citations.] Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.] We review the trial court's determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " (People v. Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912, 915-916.)
In this case, there was certainly evidence Mims used violence, force, and fear to restrain the victim's liberty for purposes of pimping and pandering. The victim testified Mims used force against her on multiple occasions if she objected to working as a prostitute. She did not feel she was free to leave or to quit the prostitution activities because if she did either Mims or Watergate would hurt her. Hasell testified if the victim objected to going to work, Mims would take her to a back room. When she came out she would be crying or holding her arm and she would go to work.
The assault with a deadly weapon incident appears different. Contrary to Mims's contention, there was evidence the assault with the knife was related to a domestic argument the victim had with Mims after seeing him with another woman. The victim considered Mims to be her boyfriend. The victim testified she confronted and argued with Mims after seeing him with another woman at the end of May. She testified he held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her as a result of an argument on May 31 or June 1. Panov, who interviewed the victim on multiple occasions, stated the victim reported she left Mims as a result of the knife incident, after she confronted him about seeing him with another woman. Therefore, there was substantial evidence to support the court's implied finding this incident of violence was separate and apart from the violence Mims inflicted on the victim in connection with human trafficking.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. IRION, J.