« Should a minor crime prevent offender from lawful use of medical marijuana? | Main | "The Constitutionality of Post-Crime Guidelines Sentencing" »

July 11, 2011

Intriguing Sixth Circuit habeas reversal concerning state resentencing lengthening prison term

The Sixth Circuit today issued an interesting habeas opinion today in Goodell v. Williams, No. 09-4338 (6th Cir. July 11, 2011) (available here), which gets started this way:

Warden Jesse Williams appeals from an order of the district court conditionally granting habeas relief to petitioner Charles Goodell.  The district court determined that the process by which Goodell was resentenced in the Lucas County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas, resulting in a sentence longer than the original sentence he had successfully challenged, gave rise to a presumption of vindictiveness.  Finding that the presumption was not rebutted by the Warden, the district court ruled that Goodell’s resentencing violated his due process rights.  Further, the court held the Ohio Court of Appeals’ contrary ruling was contrary to clearly established federal law.  We conclude that the circumstances of Goodell’s resentencing do not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness, that even if such a presumption applied, it was rebutted, and that, in any event, the Ohio Court of Appeals’ adjudication of these issues was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.  For the reasons that follow, the district court’s ruling is reversed.

July 11, 2011 at 02:39 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Intriguing Sixth Circuit habeas reversal concerning state resentencing lengthening prison term:


never mind that the law is an ass! This term "nor an unreasonable application of" is a cop out clause of so many abuses against defendants.

Posted by: peter | Jul 11, 2011 3:33:22 PM

was just thinking the same! just what the hell is the warden doing involved in this!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 11, 2011 10:33:52 PM

The warden is involved with this because it's a habeas case. Wardens are always the opposing parties in habeas cases, because the inmate is suing to get out of prison.

Posted by: Moron | Jul 12, 2011 11:03:05 AM

cute name there!

i would think the defending party would be whoever PUT HIM IN THERE!

THEY are the ones who should be DEFENDING their actions!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 12, 2011 2:29:32 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB