Case # 15NF1059
Date: May 18, 2016
MAN CONVICTED OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, PIMPING, AND PANDERING WOMAN AND ATTEMPTED PIMPING OF ANOTHER WOMAN BY THREATENING THE VICTIMS
SANTA ANA, Calif. – A man was convicted yesterday, May 17, 2016, of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering woman, and attempting to pimp another woman by threatening the victims. Johnny Lee Guyton Jr., 46, Henderson, Nevada, was found guilty by a jury of one felony count of human trafficking, one felony count of pimping, two felony counts of pandering, and one felony count of attempted pimping. Guyton faces a maximum sentence of 21 years and four months in state prison at his sentencing on June 9, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Department C-37, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana.
On April 21, 2015, Guyton was charged in case 15NF1059 with two felony counts of human trafficking, two felony counts of pimping, two felony counts of pandering. This case was subsequently consolidated with case 15NF2346.
Circumstances of the Case
Guyton is a human trafficker/pimp who exploits women for financial gain. With the rise in popularity of social media and ease of meeting people on the Internet, many pimps and human traffickers utilize a variety of social media to locate potential victims. The victims are required to turn over all payment they receive for sex acts from sex purchasers to their pimp. Failure to follow these rules can result in deprivation of food and/or physical and/or emotional abuse.
In August 2014, Guyton pandered Jane Doe 1 by persuading her to perform commercial sex acts for his benefit in Santa Ana. The defendant forced the victim to solicit commercial sex and verbally threatened her with violence if she did not give him all of the money she received from sex purchasers.
During that time, Guyton filmed himself attempting to pimp and verbally threatening Jane Doe 1 in Orange County, and sent the videos to associates to brag about pimping the victim.
Between Dec. 1, 2014, and April 18, 2015, Guyton forced Jane Doe 1 to engage in commercial sex seven days a week, from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. or later, including during the victim’s menstrual cycle. Guyton only permitted the victim to see her child three or four times a week depending on how quickly or how close the victim came to meeting the quota he set. During that time, Guyton received between $30,000 and $50,000 from the victim.
Around Dec. 1, 2014, the defendant used a social media messaging service to contact, Jane Doe 2, who was living in South Dakota, with the intent of persuading her to engage in commercial sex acts for his benefit. Guyton pandered Jane Doe 2 by sending her pictures of mansions and luxury vehicles, and told her that she could improve her life if she would engage in commercial sex acts.
Between Dec. 1, 2014, and April 18, 2015, Guyton pandered Jane Doe 2 by paying for her to take a bus to meet him in Nevada. Guyton trafficked and pimped Jane Doe 2 by having her solicit commercial sex in areas known for prostitution and human trafficking in Nevada, Anaheim, and Santa Ana. Guyton set a rigid quota of $1,000 that Jane Doe 2 was required to earn before she could stop working. The defendant deprived Jane Doe 2 of her liberty by making false promises and threatening to keep her child from her if she did not meet the quotas that he set.
Around April 18, 2015, one of the victims reported the crime to a family member, who then contacted the Anaheim Police Department (APD). APD and the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force (OCHTTF) investigated this case and arrested the defendant the next day.
Members of the OCHTTF and OCDA work proactively to protect women and minors from falling victim to commercial sexual exploitation. This case was investigated by OCHTTF, a partnership between APD, California Highway Patrol, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Huntington Beach Police Department, Irvine Police Department, OCDA, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Santa Ana Police Department, and community and non-profit partners.
Deputy District Attorney Bryan Clavecilla of the HEAT Unit is prosecuting this case.
Proposition 35 and HEAT
In November 2012, California’s anti-human trafficking Proposition 35 (Prop 35) was enacted in California with 81 percent of the vote, and over 82 percent of the vote in Orange County, to increase the penalty for human trafficking, particularly in cases involving the trafficking of a minor by force.
A component of the OCHTTF is the OCDA’s Human Exploitation And Trafficking (HEAT) Unit, which targets perpetrators who sexually exploit and traffic women and underage girls for financial gain, including pimps, panderers, and human traffickers. The HEAT Unit uses a tactical plan called PERP: Prosecution, to bring justice for victims of human trafficking and hold perpetrators responsible using Prop 35; Education, to provide law enforcement training to properly handle human trafficking and pandering cases; Resources from public-private partnerships to raise public awareness about human trafficking and provide assistance to the victims; and Publicity, to inform the public and send a message to human traffickers that this crime cannot be perpetrated without suffering severe consequences.
Under the law, human trafficking is described as depriving or violating the personal liberty of another person with the intent to effect a violation of pimping or pandering. Pimping is described as knowingly deriving financial support in whole or in part from the proceeds of prostitution. Pandering is the act of persuading or procuring an individual to become a prostitute, or procuring and/or arranging for a person work in a house of prostitution.
Penal Code Section 236.1 defines:
(1) “Coercion” includes any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process; debt bondage; or providing and facilitating the possession of any controlled substance to a person with the intent to impair the person’s judgment.
(2) “Commercial sex act” means sexual conduct on account of which anything of value is given or received by any person.
(3) “Deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another” includes substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, 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.
(4) “Duress” includes a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution sufficient to cause a reasonable person to acquiesce in or perform an act which he or she would otherwise not have submitted to or performed; a direct or implied threat to destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess any actual or purported passport or immigration document of the victim; or knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or possessing any actual or purported passport or immigration document of the victim.
(5) “Forced labor or services” means labor or services that are performed or provided by a person and are obtained or maintained through force, fraud, duress, or coercion, or equivalent conduct that would reasonably overbear the will of the person.
(6) “Great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury.
(7) “Minor” means a person less than 18 years of age.
(8) “Serious harm” includes any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor, services, or commercial sexual acts in order to avoid incurring that harm.
(i) The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the trafficker or agents of the trafficker, and any handicap or disability of the victim, shall be factors to consider in determining the presence of “deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another,” “duress,” and “coercion” as described in this section.