State v. Woodall

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/07/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DIANA LYNN WOODALL, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/07/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 10-0253 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-123162-001DT The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following Diana Lynn Woodall s conviction of one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs, a Class 4 felony. Woodall s counsel has searched the record on appeal no and frivolous. found arguable question of law that is not See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Woodall was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. record, we affirm Woodall s After reviewing the entire conviction and imposition of probation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Police intersection. her driver Police stopped Woodall for failing to stop at an She was arrested because she could not produce license, subsequently car registration searched her or proof vehicle and of insurance. found a bag containing white rocks that Woodall later stipulated were crack cocaine. Woodall was charged with possession or use of narcotic drugs, a Class 4 felony, but prosecution was suspended to allow her to complete a diversion program. Prosecution resumed after Woodall failed to fulfill the conditions of the program. found her guilty of the charge. The court suspended sentence and placed her on probation for four years. 2 A jury her ¶3 to Woodall timely appealed. Article Arizona 6, Revised Section 9, Statutes of We have jurisdiction pursuant the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) Constitution, sections and 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and -4033(A)(1) (2010). 1 DISCUSSION ¶4 was The record reflects Woodall received a fair trial. represented by counsel at all stages of the She proceedings against her and was present at all critical stages. The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of eight members with one alternate. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, the State s burden of proof and the necessity unanimous of a verdict, unanimous which was verdict. confirmed The by jury returned a juror polling. The court received and considered a presentence report and addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed probation for the crime of which Woodall was convicted. CONCLUSION ¶5 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. 1 See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Absent material revisions after the date offense, we cite a statute s current version. 3 of an alleged ¶6 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need only inform Woodall of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless, appropriate for upon review, submission petition for review. to counsel the finds Arizona an Supreme issue Court by See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584- 85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). On the court s own motion, Woodall has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Woodall has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per petition for review. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.