People v. Dark CA2/1

Filed 7/7/16 P. v. Dark CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B262272

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA063648) v.

CHARLES ANTHONY DARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John Murphy, Commissioner. Affirmed. Daniel G. Koryn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

On January 14, 2015, a jury convicted Charles Anthony Dark (Dark) of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (b)),1 procuring and offering a false or forged instrument (§ 115, subd. (a)), and failing to provide information and provision of false information (§ 290.018, subd. (j)). On appeal, Dark advances two principal arguments. First, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for procuring and offering a false or forged instrument. Second, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 362, a consciousness-of-guilt instruction. We disagree with both contentions and, accordingly, affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND A. DARK’S FAILINGS WITH REGARD TO HIS SEX OFFENDER OBLIGATIONS In 1993, when Dark was 32 years old, a jury convicted him of forcibly raping a 15-year-old girl while he was armed with a weapon. As a result of this conviction, California law required Dark to register with local law enforcement, providing, among other things, an accurate local address; in addition, Dark was required to update his address annually and, if he moved to a new local address, to update that information within five business days of changing his address. From approximately August 2006 to June 2011, Dark lived in apartment number 1 in an apartment building on East Avenue Q-3, in the City of Palmdale (the apartment number 1 address). Karen Drager, who did not know or recognize Dark, testified at trial that she had been living at the apartment number 1 address since February 2013. On November 9, 2012, and again on November 8, 2013, Dark signed an annual sex offender registration form with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in Palmdale. The four-page form is divided into two parts, each consisting of two pages. The first part provides substantive information about the registering sex offender (e.g.,