State v. Goff (Slip Opinion), 113 N.E.3d 490

Background

In 1994 James R. Goff, then 19, delivered furniture to 88-year-old Myrtle Rutledge and later returned to her home; she was found murdered from blunt and sharp trauma during an apparent burglary. Goff was convicted of aggravated murder and related offenses and sentenced to death in 1995.
At the 1995 mitigation phase the defense presented testimony about Goff’s troubled childhood, substance abuse, and a psychologist’s opinion that he would likely adjust to prison; the jury recommended death and the trial court imposed it.
On federal habeas review the Sixth Circuit held appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the trial court’s failure to afford Goff allocution, and issued a conditional writ directing Ohio courts to reopen his direct appeal. Goff’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to permit allocution.
At the 2015 resentencing the trial court allowed allocution, received a proffered psychologist’s report, denied Goff’s request to present new mitigation evidence (including post‑incarceration good behavior), and again imposed death; the court of appeals affirmed.
The Ohio Supreme Court considered four propositions: (1) whether a new jury was required at resentencing; (2) whether the court erred by excluding new mitigating evidence; (3) ineffective assistance at resentencing (preparation for allocution and failing to proffer institutional records); and (4) whether the sentence relied on information Goff could not deny or explain. The court affirmed the death sentence after statutory and constitutional analysis and an independent review.

Issues

Issue	Goff's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to empanel a new jury for resentencing	R.C. 2929.06(B) and the Sixth Amendment (post‑Hurst) require a new jury because the prior death sentence was vacated	The statutory remand rule and precedent require proceeding from the point of error (allocution), not a full new jury trial; Ohio’s scheme satisfies the Sixth Amendment	Court rejected Goff: no new jury required; weighing is not a Sixth Amendment factfinding requirement
Whether the trial court erred by excluding new mitigation (e.g., post‑incarceration good conduct) at resentencing	Lockett/Eddings/Skipper require full consideration of all relevant mitigation, including new evidence developed after the original sentencing	When resentencing corrects a post‑mitigation error, the court proceeds from the point of error; Lockett line does not require reopening mitigation on remand	Court rejected Goff: exclusion proper because remand was limited to allocution point; no right to “update” mitigation
Whether defense counsel were ineffective at resentencing (allocution prep; not proffering institutional records)	Counsel failed to prepare an effective allocution and did not proffer institutional evidence of good behavior, prejudicing outcome	No record evidence of deficient preparation; even if deficient, Goff cannot show prejudice; proffered new‑evidence claims fail because such evidence was properly excluded on remand	Court rejected Goff: Strickland not met (no demonstrated deficiency or prejudice)
Whether the sentence relied on information Goff could not deny or explain (denial of due process)	Prosecutor’s remarks and the court’s consideration of some material amounted to reliance on unchallenged information (e.g., post‑incarceration behavior)	Prosecutor’s comment addressed length of time incarcerated, not adverse evidence of prison behavior; Goff had opportunity to explain and allocute	Court rejected Goff: no due‑process violation; he was afforded allocution and opportunity to rebut

Key Cases Cited

State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 1998) (original direct‑appeal opinion affirming conviction and sentence)
Goff v. Bagley, 601 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2010) (habeas holding appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise allocution claim)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (plurality: sentencer must not be precluded from considering any relevant mitigating evidence)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer may not refuse to consider relevant mitigating evidence)
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (good‑behavior evidence in custody is relevant mitigation)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Florida scheme unconstitutional where judge, not jury, made critical findings necessary for death penalty)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (statutory aggravating circumstance is the functional equivalent of an element and must be found by a jury)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (death sentence invalid if based in part on information defendant had no chance to deny or explain)
State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230 (Ohio 2013) (on remand courts proceed from point of error; no requirement to reopen mitigation or empanel new jury)
State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2016) (no Eighth Amendment requirement that a limited resentencing judge accept new mitigation when defendant had full original mitigation opportunity)