State v. Lewis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CARLOS DEVON LEWIS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/14/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 10-0581 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-150281-001 DT The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix by Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant ________________________________________________________________ B A R K E R, Judge ¶1 Carlos Devon Lewis ( Lewis ) appeals from his conviction and sentence for three offenses: (1) theft of means of transportation, vehicle, and (3) (2) unlawful aggravated flight criminal from law enforcement damage. Lewis was sentenced on July 7, 2010 and timely filed a notice of appeal on July 8, 2010. Lewis s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after searching the entire arguable ground for reversal. record on appeal, he finds no Lewis was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before May 2, 2011, but did not do so. ¶2 of We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A)(1) (2010). reversible error. We are required to search the record for Leon, 104 Ariz. at 299, 451 P.2d at 880. Because we find no such error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History ¶3 On July 28, 2009, the victim parked his 1995 Neon at his girlfriend s house at about 1:30 to 2:00 A.M. Approximately thirty to forty-five minutes later, the victim heard his car start-up, looked out the window, and saw that his car lights were on. After seeing his car driven away, the victim and his 2 girlfriend proceeded to report the stolen vehicle to the police. The police arrived a few minutes later and the victim gave them a description of his car: a red, four-door Dodge Neon. ¶4 Officer S. and Officer A. were on duty that night and patrolling in a law enforcement vehicle driven by Officer A. when Officer A. received a hot call describing the victim s vehicle. Officer A. drove westbound on Indian School Road and spotted the suspect vehicle coming southbound on 19th Avenue, turning right (westbound) onto Indian School Road. From the passenger seat, Officer S. was able to see the suspect s face in the side-view and rear-view mirrors of the suspect vehicle. He described of the suspect as a dark skinned male with dreadlock hair tied back . . . [and] a dark goatee. kind Officer A. also had a clear view of the suspect when the patrol car was only a few feet from the suspect vehicle. S. s description of the suspect. He confirmed Officer Two other patrol cars soon joined in the pursuit. ¶5 siren, Officer vehicle. and A. activated spotlight However, the in the overhead an attempt suspect made officers and accelerated to 50-60 mph. to eye emergency lights, stop suspect the contact with the Soon after, the officers saw sparks flying beneath the suspect vehicle before it went airborne and crashed through a fence at Washington High School. Then, the suspect got out of the vehicle and ran onto the school 3 grounds. Officer A. stated the suspect was wearing a white tee- shirt, jean shorts, and white and red gym shoes. ¶6 Shortly after Officer A. set up a perimeter around the high school, a canine-unit arrived to find the suspect. canine led vehicle sweating. the parked police on the to Lewis, school who emerged grounds and from The beneath appeared to a be Lewis was then handcuffed and taken into custody. Officer A. testified he was 100 percent sure that Lewis was the same person he had seen driving the car. Officer S. also testified he was 100 percent sure that Lewis was the same individual who fled from the vehicle. ¶7 Officer S. proceeded to search the vehicle and found that the ignition had been punched. The plastic casing around the ignition had been stripped off so a screwdriver or piece of metal could now be used to start the car. Subsequently, the police notified the victim that his car had been found, drove him to Washington High School, and showed him Lewis. The victim testified that he did not know Lewis and did not give permission to anyone with that name to take his car. In addition, the vice principal of Washington High School also testified he did not know Lewis and that Lewis did not have permission to be on the school property. ¶8 At trial, Lewis testified that he did not steal a car on July 28, 2009. He stated that he had walked to the high 4 school and climbed the fence to get onto the grounds to get away from his girlfriend. He further explained that when he saw the police lights, he hid by a van parked on school grounds because he thought someone had reported him for climbing the fence or his girlfriend had called the police. ¶9 Lewis was charged transportation, (2) unlawful vehicle, and (3) aggravated with (1) flight criminal theft from of means law damage. of enforcement Lewis s case proceeded to trial where he and his counsel were present for all critical stages. The State alleged historical priors, aggravating circumstances other than prior convictions, offenses committed while impeachment. convictions on The were release court from found admissible for confinement, Lewis s and three priors prior impeachment. for felony Lewis also admitted to these three prior convictions in his testimony. ¶10 At the conclusion of the trial, a twelve-person jury found Lewis guilty as charged. On July 2, 2010, Lewis was sentenced to the presumptive terms of imprisonment for the three counts: (1) 11.25 years for theft of means of transportation, (2) 5 years for unlawful flight from law enforcement vehicle, and (3) 3.75 years for aggravated criminal damage. The court stated these terms were to be served concurrently and with the appropriate presentence incarceration credit of 339 days. court did provide Lewis with the opportunity to speak. 5 The Disposition ¶11 We have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for reversal of Lewis s conviction or for modification of the sentence imposed. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Lewis was present at all critical stages of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. All proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶12 After the filing of Accordingly, we affirm. this decision, counsel s obligations in this appeal have ended subject to the following. Counsel need do no more than inform Lewis of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584- 85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Lewis has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _____________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _______________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ _______________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.