664 F.3d 615
6th Cir.2011Background
- Ruhlman indicted in 2004 for rape of an 11-year-old; convicted of attempted rape, a lesser offense.
- Initial sentence in 2005 imposed eight years under Ohio’s second-degree felony scheme with presumptions and specific findings.
- Foster v. Ohio (2006) held §§ 2929.14(B)-(C) unconstitutional and severed, permitting any sentence within the statutory range without findings.
- Ruhlman’s sentence remanded; resentenced to eight years without the pre-Foster findings, relying on remaining criteria.
- Ruhlman challenged the retroactive Foster application as violating Ex Post Facto and Due Process; district court denied habeas relief.
- On AEDPA review, claims addressed by reviewing state court decision under deferential standard; issue narrowed to ex post facto and due process arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto challenge to Foster retroactivity | Ruhlman contends Foster increased punishment retroactively. | State argues Foster reinterpreted sentencing and did not increase punishment. | Ex post facto claim rejected; no greater punishment resulted from retroactive Foster application. |
| Due process challenge to Foster’s effect on elements vs. sentencing factors | Foster converted offense elements into sentencing factors retroactively. | Foster did not alter the offense elements or the range; it allowed within-range sentencing. | Due process not violated; pre-Foster notice and ranges remained applicable; Foster did not create ex post facto-type due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (limitations on judicial fact-finding for sentencing)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (severed noncompliant portions; any sentence within statutory range permitted)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory guidelines remedy applying Booker to state law)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (1977) (operative fact concept for warning of penalties when statutes change)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964) (due process notice/foreseeability in retroactive criminal-law interpretations)
- Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (ex post facto due process concerns; focus on notice and foreseeability)
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987) (retrospective guideline changes and punishment effectiveness)
- Jamison v. Collins, 416 F.3d 538 (2005) (appeal of Booker remedial holding; reliance in state courts)