Opinion ID: 222859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Woods's alias

Text: Woods contends that his trial counsel's failure to object to the use of Woods's alias, Michael A. Smith, was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial. The Washington Supreme Court, however, determined that the use of the alias was proper under state law as relevant and material to prove or disprove any of the issues in the case. 114 P.3d at 619 (citing State v. Elmore, 139 Wash.2d 250, 985 P.2d 289, 310 (1999); State v. Cartwright, 76 Wash.2d 259, 456 P.2d 340 (1969)). Specifically, the Washington Supreme Court determined that, because the identity of the perpetrator was at issue, because Woods was booked at the jail under the name Michael A. Smith, and because two of the fingerprints that were found at the crime scene were identified as belonging to Michael Smith, the use of the alias was appropriate to identify Woods as the perpetrator. Id. That determination of state law is binding on this court. Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76, 126 S.Ct. 602, 163 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005). Thus, even assuming Woods's attorney was deficient for not objecting to the use of his alias, we cannot conclude that it was prejudicial; even had defense counsel made the objection, it would have been properly overruled. Woods is therefore not entitled to habeas relief on this claim.