Goodwin v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185

Goodwin was tried and sentenced to death in 1994 in Ohio for participation in a Big Star Market robbery and the murder of Mustafa Sammour.
The district court granted habeas relief on Goodwin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing; the Warden appeals and Goodwin cross-appeals on other habeas claims.
Ohio Supreme Court rejected several direct-appeal and post-conviction claims, including trial counsel’s effectiveness and the sufficiency of evidence for prior calculation and design.
The district court found trial counsel’s mitigation investigation deficient and that the residual-doubt sentencing strategy was not reasonably informed.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit addresses (i) guilt-phase effectiveness, (ii) sufficiency of evidence for prior calculation and design, (iii) instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and (iv) sentencing-phase effectiveness, with a focus on mitigation investigation and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance at guilt phase due to opening/closing concessions	Goodwin contends Shaughnessy conceded guilt and thus failed Strickland’s performance prong	Ohio Supreme Court found counsel’s strategy reasonable given overwhelming evidence against Goodwin	Not contrary/unreasonable; Strickland applied reasonably
Insufficient evidence of prior calculation and design	Record lacked proof that Goodwin planned to kill with prior calculation	Evidence showed planning of robbery and execution; injection of gun to head supports design	Not contrary/unreasonable; Ohio Supreme Court’s sufficiency review proper under Jackson/Beck framework
Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offense	Evidence could have supported manslaughter verdict	Evidence showed intentional killing; no plain error or ineffective assistance	Procedural default preserved; merits would not yield relief; Beck framework applied properly
Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing – mitigation investigation	Counsel failed to investigate background and present mitigating evidence; residual-doubt strategy inadequate	Strategy deemed reasonable; new evidence not necessary to present at sentencing	Affirmed district court; prejudice shown; remand for new sentencing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance/prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (Beck standard for instructing on lesser included offenses in Beck contexts)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Clear standard for reviewing evidence sufficiency on appeal)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (counsel’s strategy to concede guilt in guilt phase not necessarily deficient)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA deference; reliance on state court’s analysis of federal law)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (mitigation investigation deficient; impact on prejudice must be weighed)