Dwayne Woods v. Stephen Sinclair

In 1997, a Washington jury found Dwayne A. Woods guilty of two counts of *1116 aggravated murder in the first degree, one count of attempted murder in the first degree, and one count of attempting to elude a police vehicle. After two days of deliberation, the jury sentenced Woods to death. The Washington State Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence, State v. Woods, 143 Wash.2d 561 , 23 P.3d 1046 (2001), and denied his petition for post-conviction relief, In re Woods, 154 Wash.2d 400 , 114 P.3d 607 (2005). Woods then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, which was denied. Woods appeals from the denial of habeas relief, contending that (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself, (2) the state court’s admission of certain evidence violated the Confrontation Clause, (3) the State withheld material, exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and (4) his trial counsel’s representation was ineffective. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

In a previous opinion filed on August 10, 2011, we affirmed the district court’s order denying…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The Supreme Court gave Dwayne Woods an inch. The majority gives him a mile. When the Court remanded this case to the same panel that affirmed Woods’s sentence in 2011, it gave Woods the opportunity to argue that his four proeedurally defaulted claims deserved a federal audience. But none of these new claims cast any doubt on Woods’s manifest guilt for the brutal murders of Jade Moore and Telisha Shaver on April 27, 1996. Fortunately, the third victim of his senseless violence, Venus Shaver, survived to testify against him at trial. And even Woods himself invited his death sentence when, at the penalty phase of the trial, he told the jury that he had “no objection” to a death sentence, and asked them to “go back and return a vote to impose the death penalty.”

Because none of Woods’s new claims would lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Woods did not murder Jade Moore and Telisha Shaver, or attempt to murder Venus Shaver, no court can provide Woods the relief he seeks. The majority’s remand serves only one purpose: unnecessary delay. I respectfully dissent from Sections X.F.1, X.G., and footnote 18 of the majority opinion.

I

On…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWAYNE ANTHONY WOODS, No. 09-99003 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:05-CV-00319-LRS

STEPHEN SINCLAIR,

Respondent-Appellee. OPINION

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed August 25, 2014

Before: Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Paez; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Tallman SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction and capital sentence for two counts of aggravated murder in the first degree and one count of attempted murder in the first degree, and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether the petitioner can show cause and prejudice under Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), excusing procedural default on certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The panel held that the state court did not…