California Court of Appeal Jan 25, 2016 No. E062850Unpublished
Filed 1/25/16 P. v. Lewis CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E062850
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1301449)
KAROME DYNELL LEWIS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris,
Judge. Affirmed.
Loleena Ansari, 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 A. Natasha Cortina and
Christine Levingston Bergman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant, Karome Dynell Lewis, and codefendant, James Michael
Wilson, were charged with one count of kidnapping Willy Neal from an apartment
complex in Las Vegas, Nevada and with transporting Neal into California. (Pen. Code,
§ 207, subd. (d).) Defendant and Wilson were tried separately and a jury convicted
may ordinarily rely on the record of conviction to justify the denial of relief under Penal
Code section 1385.” (Ibid.)
Here, the court summarily denied defendant’s Romero motion without explaining
its grounds for denial. Defendant thus contends that the court abused its discretion in
denying the motion, because the record does not indicate why the court denied the
motion. But the trial court was not required to explain its reasons, and the record
supports its decision to deny defendant’s Romero motion. Defendant’s three prior strikes
arose from a 1995 incident where defendant, who was then 19 years old, and two
companions committed an armed robbery of a restaurant. Defendant was convicted of
one count of burglary, six counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery, and seven
counts of false imprisonment, and received a prison sentence of 10 years 4 months. He
was released from prison around 2001, but violated parole in 2002 and 2003. He was
also charged in New Mexico, Connecticut, and California with drug-related offenses in
2005, 2008, and 2011, respectively, before being arrested in 2013 for the current offense.
Both the past strikes and the current offense involved the use of violence, and
defendant has repeatedly run afoul of the law between the commission of the prior strikes
and of the current crime. Defendant points out that he “had been out of custody for
around 13 years [since his three prior strikes], where he did not sustain any new
convictions.” But as noted, between the time he was released from prison in 2001 and
the kidnapping in 2013, he violated parole twice and was arrested three times for drug-
related offenses. Based on his conduct between the commission of the prior strikes and
the current crime, the trial court reasonably determined that defendant fell within the
spirit of the Three Strikes law, and it did not abuse its discretion when it declined to
dismiss two of defendant’s three prior strikes.
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the defendant's kidnapping conviction as an aider and abettor and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss prior strike convictions.
Issues
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting kidnapping.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's Romero motion to dismiss prior strike convictions.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“substantial evidence supported defendant’s kidnapping conviction, and as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss two of defendant’s prior strike convictions.”
“the jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant was the person who was holding Neal down in Las Vegas as Wilson drove the vehicle away, and that, by holding Neal down, defendant intended to encourage or facilitate the kidnapping of Neal.”