State v. Woods, A-1-CA-34456

Background

On Nov. 1, 2011 in Bent, NM, Tad William Woods unlawfully re-entered Doralene Sanders’ residence after she had changed the locks and did not give him access.
Woods confronted Sanders, assaulted her, and took her loaded .38 revolver from under her mattress; Sanders reported the theft to police.
Deputies encountered Woods at a nearby church; he rammed a deputy’s vehicle and fled, and a deputy shot and wounded Woods in the head during the encounter.
Woods returned to Sanders’ home, fired shots at and into the dwelling, broke into a bedroom through a window, and held Sanders and her two daughters hostage for several hours before surrendering.
A jury convicted Woods of multiple counts including aggravated burglary, larceny of a firearm, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (one challenged on appeal), aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, shooting at a dwelling, breaking and entering, and negligent child abuse; he was sentenced to 38 years.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated burglary, larceny, assault, fleeing, shooting at a dwelling, breaking & entering	State: testimony and physical evidence (missing gun, entry point, bullet locations, witness accounts, deputy testimony) established each element beyond a reasonable doubt	Woods: challenged sufficiency for all the above counts except child abuse and one assault count	Court: Affirmed — substantial direct and circumstantial evidence supported each conviction
Jury instruction for aggravated fleeing	State: UJI 14-2217 correctly states statutory elements	Woods: instruction omitted element that defendant must have ignored the officer’s signal (i.e., drove in proscribed manner after being signaled)	Court: Instruction adequate; a reasonable juror would not be misled; no fundamental error
Alleged unfair prejudice from testimony indicating prior incarceration/domestic calls	State: testimony was either non-prejudicial or not solicited; curative instruction given where needed	Woods: statements by officers (served subpoenas at jail; prior dealings; earlier domestic call) suggested prior bad acts/incarceration and prejudiced jury	Court: Most statements unobjected to (preserved issues waived); for the unsolicited “in jail” remark, court sustained objection, gave curative instruction, and denied mistrial — no abuse of discretion
Speedy trial violation	State: timely prosecution; delays largely caused by defendant’s continuances	Woods: claimed fundamental error despite failing to raise or demand speedy trial below	Held: Court declined review — claim unpreserved and not shown to be fundamental error
Ineffective assistance (failure to request voluntary intoxication/diminished-capacity evidence of being shot)	Woods: counsel should have requested intoxication instruction and investigated effects of being shot on mens rea	State: voluntary intoxication instruction arguably supported but Woods failed to show prejudice; being shot occurred after crimes of specific intent	Court: No prima facie ineffective-assistance shown; no prejudice established; denial of remand for evidentiary hearing affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cabezuela, 350 P.3d 1145 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Cunningham, 998 P.2d 176 (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Garcia, 384 P.3d 1076 (evaluate whether evidence supports verdict beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (disregard evidence supporting different result; preservation principles)
State v. Padilla, 176 P.3d 299 (aggravated fleeing explained)
State v. Benally, 34 P.3d 1134 (review of jury instructions — reasonable juror standard)
State v. Otto, 157 P.3d 8 (Rule 11-403 review — abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Grogan, 163 P.3d 494 (habeas as preferred vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims)