People v. Woods CA2/4

Filed 3/26/24 P. v. Woods CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B327938

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA454486) v.

ROBERT CLAY WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Karla D. Kerlin, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Robert Clay Woods appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and appellant filed a supplemental brief. We review the contentions appellant raises in his supplemental brief and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 10, 2017, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and felony vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)). The information further alleged that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the attempted murder victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally and intentionally discharged a handgun during that crime (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), causing great bodily injury to the victim (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). At trial, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM pattern jury instructions, including those on attempted murder (CALCRIM No. 600), deliberation and premeditation (CALCRIM No. 601), and the firearm and great bodily injury enhancements (CALCRIM Nos. 3148, 3149, 3160). The court did not instruct the jury on aiding and abetting (CALCRIM Nos. 400, 401) or the natural and probable consequences doctrine (CALCRIM Nos. 402, 403). The jury found appellant guilty of attempted murder and misdemeanor vandalism, and found the firearm and great bodily injury enhancements true. However, the jury found not true the allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The trial court declined to strike the firearm