State v. Woods

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL WOODS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0137
FILED 02-20-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-002816-001
The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Zhivago Law, Phoenix
By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. WOODS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Michael Woods appeals his convictions and sentences for ten
counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. After searching the record and
finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Woods’s counsel filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State
v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the record for
fundamental error. Woods had the chance to file a supplemental brief but
did not. After reviewing the record, we affirm Woods’s convictions and
sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Undercover agents with the United States Department of
Homeland Security infiltrated Zoom rooms where participants watched
child pornography together. One agent observed Woods screen-sharing
child pornography and masturbating. That agent started a Zoom chat with
Woods and Woods offered the agent his phone number. Homeland
Security used the phone number to locate Woods and obtained a warrant
to search his home. Forensic analysts discovered over 17,000 videos with
child pornography saved on Woods’s computer and external hard drive. In
a recorded interview, Woods confessed to downloading, sharing and
masturbating to videos of young boys.

¶3 Woods was arrested and charged with ten counts of sexual
exploitation of a minor, a class two felony and dangerous crime against
children. See A.R.S. § 13-3553. After four years of uncontested
continuances, the superior court held a five-day jury trial. The jury found
Woods guilty on all charges. Woods was sentenced to ten presumptive
consecutive terms of seventeen years’ imprisonment on each count.

¶4 Woods timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031, -4033(A)(1).

2
 STATE v. WOODS
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

¶6 Woods was present at all critical stages of the proceeding,
except for three days of trial when his presence was waived. He was
represented by counsel at all critical stages, too. The record reflects that the
superior court afforded Woods all his constitutional and statutory rights
and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and
the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to
support the jury’s verdicts. Woods’s sentence is also within the range
prescribed by law. We find no error on this record.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Woods’s convictions and sentences. Counsel’s
obligations in this appeal will end once Woods is informed of the outcome
and his future options, unless counsel detects an issue appropriate for the
Arizona Supreme Court’s review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–
85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Woods has 30 days from the date of
this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition
for review.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3