Opinion ID: 1655090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Woodward's counsel failed to make sure the Court's written orders reflected the rulings from the bench.

Text: ¶ 23. Woodward argues that his trial counsel were ineffective when they failed to make sure that the written order regarding a motion reflected the ruling from the bench. On September 10, 1986, Woodward's attorneys, Jones and Bradley, filed a motion in limine seeking to enjoin the prosecution from referring to prior acts, arrests, and convictions of Woodward. Adelman and Rushing renewed that motion prior to the re-sentencing trial. Woodward argues that during the hearing on that motion, the trial court ordered that the ruling would be held in abeyance, but that the order that was entered stated that the motion was denied. Woodward further asserts that his counsel were ineffective when they failed to object when the prosecution touched on these matters. ¶ 24. Woodward has ignored facts relevant to this issue. Prior to trial, both sides presented numerous motions to be ruled on, including several motions in limine. During the hearing on the subject motion, the trial court agreed that arguments would be heard when the issue came up during trial. Woodward asserts that an order, drafted by the prosecution without approval of the defense, was entered denying the subject motion. However, Woodward ignores the fact that numerous orders were entered by the trial court on the same day, including an order that specifically stated that the Court will not rule until such time as a[sic] new testimony is attempted to be offered in connection with the evidence of other crimes. One order held the specific issues involved in the subject motion in abeyance, while the other order denied all other motions in limine. Woodward has failed to show any deficient performance by his counsel and has failed to show any prejudice to his defense. This issue is without merit. ¶ 25. Woodward also argues that his counsel were ineffective when they failed to object when the State touched on these matters. This argument was addressed earlier and is without merit.