People v. Wood CA5

Filed 11/22/13 P. v. Wood CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F064697

v. (Super. Ct. No. BF137139A)

JAMES DYLAN WOOD, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge. Mark McBride for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Peña, J.

A jury convicted appellant, James Dylan Wood, of willful infliction of injury on a spouse (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and found true allegations that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) in committing the count 1 offense and that he had suffered a prior conviction of violating section 273.5, subdivision (a) within the previous seven years (§ 273.5, subd. (e)(1)). The court imposed a prison term of five years, consisting of two years on the count 1 offense and three years on the accompanying enhancement. On count 2, the court imposed, and stayed pursuant to section 654, a term of two years. On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is the court erred in instructing the jury in accordance with CALJIC No. 2.06 that jurors could infer consciousness of guilt from attempts to suppress evidence. We affirm. FACTS The Instant Offenses Blaire Wood and appellant have been married since August 2010.2 They have one child together, A., who was almost eight months old at the time of trial. Blaire did not want to testify at appellant’s trial. On May 16, 2011 (May 16), Blaire, who was living separately from appellant at the time, took A., then a little less than one month old, to visit appellant at his residence, a small one-room “back house” located near a separate larger house. Appellant’s friend, Michael Travis, was also there. After staying a few hours, Blaire, who did not want to stay the night, decided to leave. This made appellant angry, and she and appellant argued.