State v. Woodson
Decision Date | 06 November 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 33701.,33701. |
Citation | 671 S.E.2d 438 |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. William M. WOODSON, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "To trigger application of the `plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." Syl. Pt. 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
2. " Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Scott, 206 W.Va. 158, 522 S.E.2d 626 (1999).
3. "Generally, out-of-court statements made by someone other than the declarant while testifying are not admissible unless: 1) the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but for some other purpose such as motive, intent, state-of-mind, identification or reasonableness of the party's action; 2) the statement is not hearsay under the rules; or 3) the statement is hearsay but falls within an exception provided for in the rules." Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Maynard, 183 W.Va. 1, 393 S.E.2d 221 (1990).
4. "There are three components of a constitutional due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191, 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982):(1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the defendant as exculpatory or impeachment evidence; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must have been material, i.e., it must have prejudiced the defense at trial." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Youngblood, 221 W.Va. 20, 650 S.E.2d 119 (2007).
5. Syl. Pt. 3, in part, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).
6. " ." Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Murrell, 201 W.Va. 648, 499 S.E.2d 870 (1997).
7. "In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984):(1) Counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
8. Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
9. " ." Syl. Pt. 10, State v. Hutchinson, 215 W.Va. 313, 599 S.E.2d 736 (2004).
W. Jesse Forbes, Charleston, Counsel for the Appellant.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Barbara Allen, Managing Deputy Attorney General, Robert D. Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, Counsel for the Appellee.
1
This is an appeal by Appellant William Woodson from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, of first degree robbery and malicious wounding. Appellant raises numerous assignments of error which he alleges occurred at trial and sentencing. Appellant also alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial.
This Court has carefully considered the petition for appeal, all matters of record and the briefs and argument of counsel. For the reasons discussed herein, we find no error below and, accordingly, we affirm Appellant's convictions of first degree robbery and malicious wounding and the sentences imposed.
In the evening hours of December 5, 2004, Timothy Barkey (hereinafter "victim") rode his bicycle from his apartment on Brooks Street in the East End area of Charleston to a convenience store to purchase cigarettes. The victim rode to the East End Market only to learn that it was closed. He then rode across the street to another convenience store where he purchased a pack of cigarettes. Upon leaving the store, the victim had approximately $6.00 and some change in his pocket.
When he began his ride home, the victim again rode through the East End Market parking lot. The victim testified that he rode through the parking lot on his way to Washington Street and from there he intended to ride to his apartment on Brooks Street. According to the victim, even though there were a number of "street people" who often frequented Washington Street, he felt safer taking that route because it had better lighting and had more cars driving on it compared to the other streets that also led back to his home. It was in the parking lot that the victim was stopped by Edward Brown, who had crossed the street in order to approach him. According to the victim, Brown asked him if he wanted to buy drugs and if he had any money. Brown then stated to the victim, "Well, you're in the `hood now ... [w]e're going to take your bike." While the victim was still sitting on the bicycle, Brown pulled it towards one end of the parking lot to where Appellant was sitting in his wheelchair. It was at that moment that the victim first became aware of Appellant's presence. According to the victim, Appellant then stood up and, along with Brown, began punching the victim repeatedly.2 The victim testified that the two men eventually got him to the ground where Appellant, who was wearing heavy work boots, continuously kicked the victim in the face.
The victim testified that, during the course of the attack, he heard a woman call out from a nearby apartment building for Appellant and Brown to "[l]eave him alone." In response, the victim yelled out, "Call 911." According to the victim, both men then proceeded to kick him harder and more frequently. Prior to his trial testimony, the victim had never mentioned the presence of this woman to police or to anyone else, including the prosecuting attorney.
The victim testified that, finally, Brown reached into the victim's pocket and took the small amount of money he had with him. The victim then heard Appellant say, "Well, that's all he's got, let him go." The victim's face was left bloodied by the attack and his eyes were severely swollen. After riding home to clean himself up, the victim eventually went to the emergency room where it was determined he had a fractured nose and other injuries to his eyes and face.
Thereafter, the victim identified Appellant and Brown as his assailants. Corporal James A. Rollins of the City of Charleston Police Department testified that, as Appellant was being taken into custody, he stood up out of his wheelchair to get into the patrol wagon. Corporal Rollins stated that Appellant stood up from the wheelchair without assistance but that he held Appellant's arm to make sure he did not fall backwards. According to Corporal Rollins, Appellant walked up two steps to get into the patrol wagon.3
Appellant testified in his own defense. According to Appellant, he was confined to a wheelchair because he had a spinal injury he sustained from a gunshot wound several years earlier. He stated that the right side of his body is stronger than his left and that although he is able to move his left arm and leg, they are very weak. Appellant further testified that he is an alcoholic and that, on the day of the crime, he had been drinking vodka...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Campbell
... ... 568 (2000). Such claims are more properly raised in a ... post-conviction collateral proceeding "to promote ... development of a factual record sufficient for effective ... review." Miller , 197 W.Va. at 611, 476 S.E.2d ... at 558 ... State v. Woodson , 222 W.Va. 607, 621, 671 S.E.2d ... 438, 452 (2008) (per curiam). We have further cautioned that ... Traditionally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are ... not cognizable on direct appeal. We have urged counsel ... repeatedly to think of the consequences of raising ... ...
-
State v. Campbell
...of a factual record sufficient for effective review." Miller , 197 W. Va. at 611, 476 S.E.2d at 558. State v. Woodson , 222 W. Va. 607, 621, 671 S.E.2d 438, 452 (2008) (per curiam). We have further cautioned thatTraditionally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable on d......
-
Southern v. Pszczolkowski
...See id.at 15, 459 S.E.2d at 126; see also State v. Meadows,231 W.Va. 10, 24, 743 S.E.2d 318, 332 (2013); State v. Woodson,222 W.Va. 607, 620–21, 671 S.E.2d 438, 451–52 (2008); State v. Frye,221 W.Va. 154, 155–58, 650 S.E.2d 574, 575–78 (2006). As we stressed in Miller,“[t]he test of ineffec......
-
State v. Lewis, 15–0931
...claim, superficially alleged, that his trial counsel was ineffective. As this Court confirmed in syllabus point 9 of State v. Woodson , 222 W.Va. 607, 671 S.E.2d 438 (2008), the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel should ordinarily be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding, where the r......
-
Cruel and Unusual Non-Capital Punishments
...244 S.E.2d 39, 43 (W. Va. 1978); State v. Cook, 723 S.E.2d 388, 397 (W. Va. 2010) (per curiam). 197. See, e.g., State v. Woodson, 671 S.E.2d 438, 450–51 (W. Va. 2008) (per curiam) (upholding the defendant’s thirty-five-year prison term because it was within the limits set by statute); Stat......