Split COA Finds Attorney Did Not Provide Adequate Counsel

Split COA Finds Attorney Did Not Provide Adequate Counsel
by Marilyn Odendahl of Indiana Lawyer, December 29, 2015

Two typewritten letters and handwritten notes between a now-deceased defense attorney and a former prosecutor have divided the Indiana Court of Appeals over whether a plea agreement had actually been negotiated.

Derrell Woods convinced the Court of Appeals majority that the prosecutor offered to reduce his offense in exchange for a guilty plea but his defense counsel did not tell him about it. Also, the panel found that if Woods had known about the offer, he would have accepted.

Woods, who was 15 at the time of the offense in 2003, is currently serving a 45-year aggregate sentence after being convicted of Class A felony robbery with serious bodily injury. He claimed the prosecutor had proposed dismissing the Class A felony robbery charge and a carjacking charge in exchange for his plea to Class B felony robbery, Class D felony auto theft and Class D felony possession of cocaine with sentencing left to the trial court’s discretion.

During the post-conviction relief hearing, Woods submitted two letters dated June 23, 2003, that outline the plea offer. One letter includes handwritten notes, some illegible by the defense attorney, Brent Zook, while the other letter is clean and signed by the prosecutor John Maciejczyk.

In rejecting Woods’ petition for relief, the lower court described the first letter as non-discernable hearsay. The Court of Appeals agreed with the analysis of the first letter but noted the second letter is clear and supports Woods’ assertion that Zook did not alert his client to the prosecutor’s offer.

Pointing to Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), Judge Edward Najam wrote for the majority, “…here Woods’ testimony that Zook did not extend the plea offer to him, absent any evidence to the contrary, is sufficient to prove prejudice. Indeed, Woods’ testimony in support of the post-conviction petition correlates with both his initial confession to police and his theory at trial that he was guilty of Class B, not Class A, felony robbery.”

However, Judge Melissa May dissented, arguing Woods did not overcome the presumption that counsel provided adequate service. She disputed that the evidence shows Zook did not communicate the plea offer to Woods.

“…even presuming there was a valid plea offer from Class B felony robbery, the only evidence that Zook did not communicate such offer to Woods came from the testimony of Woods himself,” May wrote. “The post-conviction court was not required to believe Woods’ testimony about that fact, even if his testimony was ‘undisputed.’”

The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Woods’ amended petition for post-conviction relief in Derrell Woods v. State of Indiana, 20A03-1506-PC-688. It remanded with instructions to proceed as if Woods had just received the plea offer. If Woods accepts the offer but the trial court rejects it, then Woods should have a new trial.
inSharF