P. v. Wood
Filed 4/14/06 P. v. Wood CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT JAMES WOOD, Defendant and Appellant. | B176782 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BA233533 & MA019371) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Modified and, as modified, affirmed with directions.
Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Appellant Robert James Wood appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on six counts of possession of a destructive device with intent to injure (Pen. Code, § 12303.3, counts one through six), count seven - possession of a substance with intent to make a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12312), possession of a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12303) as a lesser included offense of count 8 - possession of a destructive device near certain places (Pen. Code, § 12303.2), and possession of a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12303) as a lesser included offense of count 9 - possession of a destructive device with intent to injure (Pen. Code, § 12303.3) with an admission that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for 16 years 4 months.
In this case, we conclude appellant's contention that the trial court erred by giving a modified CALJIC No. 12.56 which failed to instruct that a â€