People v. Ardis CA1/5

Filed 2/2/26 P. v. Ardis CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A171923 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CRI-23019457) DERECK ARDIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Dereck Ardis (appellant) appeals following his convictions for multiple offenses. Appellant raises two challenges to his sentence. We reject both challenges and affirm. BACKGROUND In July 2024, appellant was charged by amended information with 15 counts. The information also alleged that appellant had been convicted in 1988 of kidnapping, a strike offense (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)).1

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.The underlying facts are not relevant to our resolution of the sentencing issues on appeal.

1

In August, a jury convicted appellant of four firearms counts as charged: felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800); felon in possession of a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a)); felon in possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)); and felon with a violent prior conviction in possession of a firearm (§ 29900). The jury also convicted appellant of two lesser included offenses: misdemeanor domestic violence battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) and misdemeanor trespass into a dwelling (§ 602.5). The jury acquitted appellant on the remaining charges. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true the prior strike allegation and two aggravating circumstances. In September, the trial court sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years imprisonment on one of the firearms counts, doubled to four years by the strike. The court stayed the sentences on the remaining firearms counts pursuant to section 654. The court imposed a consecutive sentence of eight months in county jail on the misdemeanor domestic violence battery count, and a concurrent sentence of six months in jail on the misdemeanor trespass count. DISCUSSION I. Romero Motion Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero2 motion. We disagree. A. Additional Background Appellant filed a Romero motion asking the trial court to strike his 1988 kidnapping conviction, arguing the conviction was remote in time, taking place “more than 36 years ago,” and his current convictions were “non-