State v. Haywood
1 CA-CR 16-0383
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- In Maricopa County, Darren C. Haywood was tried by jury and convicted of multiple offenses: two counts of aggravated assault (pistol-whipping), two counts of aggravated assault (shooting at officers), attempted first-degree murder (shooting at an officer), and one count of first-degree criminal trespass.
- Facts: during a domestic dispute Haywood struck his wife’s friend with a revolver, then left the home, fired at a responding officer in a front yard, entered a fenced backyard and doghouse, fired at another officer, and was shot and seriously wounded.
- The superior court found one prior felony, used it as an aggravating factor (not to enhance statutorily), and imposed an aggregate 43-year sentence with 646 days’ presentence incarceration credit.
- Haywood’s counsel filed an Anders brief claiming no nonfrivolous issues; Haywood did not file a supplemental brief. Counsel asked the court to search the record for fundamental error.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, affirmed convictions and sentences, but ordered a modification of the minute entry from Haywood’s “trial on priors” to correctly describe the prior conviction (Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-009327-004, Class 4 non-dangerous felony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | State: direct and circumstantial evidence supported each conviction | Haywood: (via Anders) no meritorious challenge asserted on sufficiency | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to sustain jury verdicts |
| Voluntariness of statements / need for voluntariness hearing | State: no basis shown to require a voluntariness hearing | Haywood: no specific claim raised; record did not suggest involuntariness | No hearing required; record showed no question about voluntariness |
| Jury composition, instructions, and unanimity | State: trial procedures (12-member jury, proper instructions, unanimous verdict) were correct | Haywood: no viable appellate challenge presented | Affirmed — jury properly constituted, instructed, and verdict was unanimous and polled |
| Sentencing/minute entry on prior conviction | State: sentencing properly considered prior as aggravator; minute entry needed factual correction | Haywood: challenged via appellate review of record errors | Modified — convictions and sentences affirmed but minute entry corrected to identify prior conviction accurately |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (procedural safeguards when appellate counsel finds no nonfrivolous issues)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (appellate court’s obligation to review record for fundamental error following Anders brief)
- State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415 (Ariz. 1977) (voluntariness hearing standards)
- State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271 (Ariz. 1974) (voluntariness and confession principles)
- State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining a jury verdict)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (counsel’s post-Anders duties to appellant)