People v. Wood CA5

Filed 6/10/22 P. v. Wood CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F082558 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PCF389998) v.

LELAND WOOD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Michael B. Sheltzer, Judge. Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Ian Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted Leland Wood (appellant) of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 with an enhancement for the personal infliction of great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The court sentenced appellant to eight years in state prison. On appeal, appellant contends it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 372, the jury instruction concerning the significance of flight. We conclude the instruction was supported by sufficient evidence, and any presumed error was harmless. Appellant also contends his prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), which the trial court stayed at sentencing, must be stricken because it was never proven or admitted. Respondent concedes, and we accept respondent’s concession. We strike the enhancement, and in all other respects, affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant and P.O. began dating in 2015. As of the trial they were still in a dating relationship. They lived together in appellant’s mother’s house for several years. Friction eventually developed between P.O. and appellant’s mother, and P.O. moved in with her nephew. On the evening of December 11, 2019, P.O. and the nephew were inside the nephew’s house when they heard shattering glass. The nephew went outside and saw a small white truck driving away. Appellant was known to drive a small white truck. P.O. went outside and saw the windshield of her car had been shattered. The nephew located a large rock on the ground next the car. Believing appellant was the person who broke her windshield, P.O. got into her car and drove to appellant’s mother’s house, where appellant was still living. She parked a short distance from the house and called appellant on the phone. They argued over the