Goodell v. Williams

Filing 29

Judgment Entry signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/26/11. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as required by the judgment of the Sixth Court Court of Appeals dated 7/11/11. (Related Doc. 27 , 28 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
CHARLES L. GOODELL,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
JESSE WILLIAMS, Warden,
:
:
Respondent.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-2479

JUDGMENT ENTRY

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In accordance with the mandate from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 09-4338
(July 11, 2011), the Court must vacate its September 29, 2009 Order conditionally granting
Petitioner Charles Goodell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Sixth Circuit’s opinion in this case resolves an appeal from this Court’s Opinion and
Order conditionally granting habeas relief to Goodell, which held that the unexplained imposition
of a longer sentence for Goodell upon resentencing was contrary to clearly-established federal law.
Specifically, the Court determined that Goodell’s due process claim was materially indistinguishable
from the Supreme Court’s North Carolina v. Pearce decision explaining that a longer sentence upon
remand, even if imposed by a different sentencing judge, creates a presumption of unconstitutional
vindictiveness. 395 U.S. 711 (1969).
The Sixth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion. It found no need to apply the presumption
of vindictiveness where, as in this case, the higher sentence was imposed by a different sentencing

-1-

Case No. 3:08-CV-2479
Gwin, J.
judge. Moreover, the Court of Appeals found no evidence of actual vindictiveness.1/ The Sixth
Circuit accordingly reversed this Court’s ruling and remanded for an order denying Goodell’s habeas
petition.
Therefore, as required by the Sixth Circuit’s July 11, 2011 judgment, the Court DENIES
Petitioner Goodell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 26, 2011

1/

The Court of Appeals noted in part that any presumption of vindictiveness was rebutted, because the
resentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence report containing “objective information not available to the first
sentencing judge . . . .” But this conclusion ignores the important fact that the state court judge who sentenced Goodell
after his original trial had also presided over G oodell’s arraignment and bond hearing, and thus would have been
presented with Goodell’s criminal history for the purpose of ordering bond and, later, imposing a sentence.

-2-