State v. Goff, 2016 Ohio 7834

Background

James R. Goff was convicted in 1995 of aggravated murder and related offenses; a jury recommended death after a full mitigation phase. The trial court sentenced him to death but failed to afford allocution before imposing sentence.
Goff’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal; his death sentence was later vacated and remanded for resentencing because appellate counsel failed to raise the allocution issue and the Sixth Circuit found ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Ohio Court of Appeals reopened Goff’s direct appeal, confirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded solely for resentencing with instructions to personally afford allocution to Goff.
At the 2015 resentencing the trial court allowed a proffer of an updated psychologist’s report but refused to permit broader new mitigation or to empanel a new jury; the court again imposed death.
On appeal Goff raised four issues: (1) right to a new jury under R.C. 2929.06(B)/White; (2) denial of the right to present updated mitigating evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing; and (4) sentencing based on information he could not explain or deny. The Court of Appeals rejected all claims and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Permissibility of presenting new or updated mitigation at limited resentencing	Goff: Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments entitle him to present any new mitigating evidence (psych eval update, prison adjustment) to rebut state’s dangerousness claims	State: Remand was limited; original mitigation phase was full and unrestricted, so new post-trial mitigation need not be admitted	Court: Denied — Ohio precedent (Davis, Chinn, Roberts, Jackson) controls; no right to expand mitigation on limited resentencing where original mitigation was unrestricted
Entitlement to empanel a new jury under R.C. 2929.06(B) / State v. White	Goff: White and R.C. 2929.06(B) require a new jury on resentencing so death remains available	State: Error occurred after jury recommendation (allocution); jury recommendation untainted so no need for new jury	Court: Denied — where error occurred after mitigation and jury recommendation was untainted, court proceeds from point of error and a new jury is unnecessary; White does not alter Chinn/Roberts framework
Ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing (allocution preparation and failing to proffer institutional file)	Goff: Counsel failed to prepare him for allocution and failed to present institutional-file evidence of good behavior, prejudicing outcome	State: Counsel referenced prison adjustment, obtained proffer of psychologist’s report; given Ohio precedent rejecting updated mitigation, counsel’s performance not deficient or prejudicial	Court: Denied — Strickland not satisfied; representation fell within reasonable professional assistance
Sentencing based on information defendant could not explain or deny (due process)	Goff: Resentencing relied in part on evidence he was not allowed to rebut or update, violating due process and Eighth Amendment fairness	State: Remand limited to allocution and reweighing; original mitigation was available and considered; no unconstitutional reliance on unchallengeable evidence	Court: Denied — no due-process violation where resentencing limited and original mitigation had been fully aired

Key Cases Cited

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (capital sentencer must consider any relevant mitigating evidence)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider all relevant mitigating evidence, including youth and background)
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (evidence of post-offense good behavior is relevant mitigation)
Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (1987) (sentencer cannot be precluded from considering constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence)
State v. Davis, 63 Ohio St.3d 44 (1992) (where mitigation was fully presented at original sentencing, resentencing may be limited and post-trial achievements may be excluded)
State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548 (1999) (when sentencing error occurs after jury recommendation, court should proceed from point of error and jury recommendation remains for consideration)
State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 (2012) (R.C. 2929.06(B) may be applied retroactively to permit empaneling a new jury on resentencing when jury recommendation was tainted)
Coyle v. Bagley (Davis habeas), 475 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2007) (held that updated mitigation must be allowed on resentencing; disagreed with Ohio high-court rule)
State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230 (2013) (Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed that defendants denied no constitutional right at original mitigation are not entitled to update mitigation on limited resentencing)