Document: 464 U.S. 78 104 S.Ct. 378 L.Ed.2d 187 Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Correctionsv.Arthur Frederick GOODE, III No. 83-131. Nov. 28, 1983. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, the Secretary Offender Rehabilitation, requests review a decision United States Court Appeals for Eleventh Circuit ordering District Middle to issue writ habeas corpus conditional upon resentencing respondent. For reasons set out below, we reverse. 2 * On March 5, 1976, respondent, Arthur Goode, took 10-year-old boy ("Jason") from school bus stop in Florida, sexually assaulted him, and strangled him with belt. Respondent then went Maryland where he had previously escaped mental hospital. While Maryland, kidnapped two young boys, one whom killed Virginia. The State Virginia tried convicted respondent murder sentenced life imprisonment. 3 Goode was returned stand trial committed there. Although entered plea "not guilty," there never question whether crime, since at testified graphic detail as circumstances killing. He found guilty by jury first-degree murder. 4 At sentencing phase trial, again witness stand. stated that "extremely proud" having murdered Jason "for fun it," "absolutely no remorse" over murder, would do it if given chance. recommended death penalty.1 Prior issuance court's judgment, Smith, an attorney who assisted Goode's defense, made statement on behalf effect society gain more were sentence subjected scientific study determine causes sexual abuse children. 5 After Smith's statement, judge issued his findings factors aggravation mitigation.2 three statutory aggravating been proved beyond reasonable doubt. also mitigating but determined they did not outweigh circumstances. concluded should be death. 6 imposing sentence, following statement: 7 "In closing I want address myself Counsel remarks just moment. why this man executed what has done is wrestled several days carefully considered circumstances, have able answer invoke awesome punishment Could something learned Arthur? Am doing seen heard many merely so outraged activities possibly my reason judgment are blurred? believe not. 8 If organized exist compassion love all espouse, comes point when must terminate that, certain cases times can longer help, rehabilitate people, them, [whose] actions demand respond exterminate. 9 Philosophically limited instances that. In particular case opinion, order, only know will once guarantee society, least far relates man, kill, maim, torture or harm another human being, you said Arthur, maybe don't blame. God forgive those desires your environment whoever blame power Court. 10 You violated laws, am convinced proper, truthfully, may mercy soul." v. Wainwright, 704 F.2d 593, 604 (CA11 1983). 11 conviction affirmed direct appeal Supreme State, 365 So.2d 381 (1978). This denied petition certiorari. 441 967, 99 2419, 60 1074 (1979). Thereafter, filed motion state court vacate contending, inter alia, circumstance—future dangerousness—that impermissible under law.3 denied, denial ground matter raised appeal. 403 931 (1981). Governor warrant 2, 1982. 12 Court, claiming appellate counsel ineffective because failed challenge judge's reliance nonstatutory circumstance. 410 506 (1982). That reviewed record hearing relied factor. view replying statements Smith explaining result weighing process correct. It "the fails show improperly non-statutory circumstances." Id., 509. Consequently, petition. 13 sought federal district court. claim circumstance "simply supported record." App. Pet. Cert. A-140. "[t]aking these completely context," id., A-143, "made response philosophical justification capital both generally applied [Goode's] case," A-144. "would gross distortion conclude basis statute obeyed," ibid., dismissed granted certificate probable cause appeal, stay execution pending 14 execution. 670 941 merits, panel assumed arguendo Court's finding future dangerousness entitled presumption correctness 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8). 605 (1983). However, its evaluation proceeding fairly whole." Ibid. reasoned "unique, freakish instance," recurrence factor, others been, and, pursuant law established Miller, cannot future." 608. such "arbitrary capricious manner" countenanced Eighth Amendment. We II 15 Whether asserted fact, quite sure gave insufficient deference resolution issue. first assume law. 16 axiomatic courts intervene judicial correct wrongs constitutional dimension. Engle Isaac, 457 1141, 102 2976, 73 1361 (1982); Phillips, 455 209, 940, 71 Section 2254 explicit entertain application "only [the petitioner] custody violation Constitution laws treaties States." Circuit's ultimate conclusion Amendment, critical understand reasoning employed reaching result. acknowledged Federal does prohibit consideration defendant's dangerousness. described factor "highly relevant purposes underlying sentencing." F.2d, 608 n. 18. Nevertheless, could impose without violating Because dangerousness, deemed arbitrary 17 difficulty penalty. interpretation legal issue, surely accepted, views state's highest respect binding courts. See, e.g., Brown Ohio, 432 161, 167, 97 2221, 2226, 53 (1977); Garner Louisiana, 368 157, 169, 82 248, 254, 207 (1961). consistent dissolves. 18 If, other hand, characterized historical fact decided transcript proceeding, give proper weight factual 19 Under 2254(d)(8), court, ruling corpus, overturn unless "fairly rule applies equally Sumner Mata, 449 539, 545-547, 101 764, 768-769, 66 722 (1981), requires reversal here. 20 seven justices their review, likewise rely emphasizing led "same, independent conclusion" reached eight judges predictions A three-member Circuit, record. 21 best, ambiguous. might describing process, explaining, after imposed accordance standards regard thought yielded intuitively conclusions find fair support record, erred substituting facts IV 22 Even concluding unavailable law, reversing dismissal 23 recognizing free enact system which considered, believed failure follow constituted Fourteenth Amendments "arbitrary" "freakish" 610. 24 Barclay --- ----, 103 3418, 77 1134 (1983), upheld despite improper plurality "mere errors concern Gryger Burke, 334 728, 731, 68 1256, 1257, 92 L.Ed. 1683 (1948), rise some level rights protected Constitution." U.S., S.Ct., 3428. "is infects balancing created constitutionally let stand." 3427. 25 great infected. properly instructed sentence. "comparing shown evidence sub judice, our sentence." 381, 384-385 Whatever true judge, conducting reweighing sound procedures followed produced forbidden 26 leave proceed forma pauperis granted. 27 certiorari granted, reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. ordered. 29 Justice BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 30 Adhering penalty cruel unusual prohibited Amendments, Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 227, 96 2909, 2950, 49 859 (1976) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), deny 31 accept prevailing permissible nonetheless object summary Appeals. By taking step, adds growing disturbing trend toward disposition involving punishment. 32 When intervening affect lower decision, practice grant certiorari, remand further light decision. Wainwright Henry, 3566, 1407 present case, acknowledges, recent plainly bears questions today chooses reverse summarily instead remanding Barclay, contradicts general practice, demonstrates disquieting readiness dispose merits benefit full briefing oral argument. See Maggio Williams, 311, ---- (1983) dissenting). 33 dissent. Instead, recommendation advisory. Fla.Stat. 921.141(2). complete description capital-sentencing system, see separate determinations prior imposition sentence: (1) presence doubt; (2) circumstances; (3) appropriate 921.141. expressly limits enumerated statute. 921.141(5). Miller 373 882 (1979), held error consider probability defendant commit acts violence future.

Category: 0