People v. Lewis CA3

Filed 5/20/24 P. v. Lewis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098522

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE008624)

v.

DERRICK JEROME LEWIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Derrick Jerome Lewis guilty of carjacking, the trial court sentenced him to 37 years to life in prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by admitting evidence of a prior robbery, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction for a lesser related offense. Finding no error, we affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a))1 and alleged several aggravating circumstances and two prior serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1170.12). At trial, a witness testified he saw defendant attack a man carrying items to his car from the gas station convenience store. The victim hit the ground and curled up to protect himself while defendant continued to “wail[]” on him. The victim called his cousin, who lived about one minute away, and told him what was happening. When the victim’s cousin arrived, he saw someone driving the victim’s car out of the gas station with the victim running next to the car, holding onto the steering wheel from outside the vehicle. The car pulled into the parking lot next to the gas station and defendant repeatedly hit the victim to make him let go. The victim’s cousin then pointed a gun at defendant and defendant stopped. Another car pulled up with two people inside who said, “you can have your stuff back, you know, we don’t want no problems.” Surveillance video showing defendant attacking the victim and trying to get into the victim’s car was played for the jury. The People moved to introduce evidence of a prior robbery from 2017. There, defendant (while appearing to be a homeless person) approached a different victim asking for money. After that victim said he did not have any, defendant chased him to a gas station where defendant assaulted him and took his phone, wallet, and bag. A few hours later, defendant appeared at that victim’s home and tried to open the door. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing the prior conduct evidence would be unduly prejudicial, cause confusion, and result in the undue consumption of time. The trial court ruled that the prior robbery was admissible to prove intent, and the jury heard testimony detailing