Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goldblum v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

April 6, 2017

KEITH DONALD GOLDBLUM, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Chillicothe Correctional Institution Respondent.

          District Judge, Walter Herbert Rice

          ORDER TO PAY FILING FEE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          MICHAEL R. MERZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This habeas corpus case is before the Court for decision on the merits. Petitioner filed the Petition pro se (ECF No. 1) but a Reply through counsel (ECF No. 15). Respondent filed an Answer/Return of Writ (Doc. No. 8).

         Petitioner has never paid the filing fee in this case, nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Considering that he is now represented by retained counsel, he is ORDERED to pay the filing fee ($5.00) forthwith.

         Goldblum pleads the following seven Grounds for Relief:

GROUND 1: Petitioner's due process rights were violated under the 14th Amendment based on insufficient evidence in Counts One, Two, and Three.
Supporting Facts: There were no witnesses and no evidence of invasion of privacy. There was no secretive or surreptitious activity. There was no evidence, including testimony, of the element, “for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying (one's) self.” GROUND 2: Petitioner's due process rights were violated under the 14th Amendment based on insufficient evidence in Counts 4 and 6-14.
Supporting Facts: There was no physical or psychological evidence of abuse; no blood, no injury, no DNA, no psychological markers of abuse. There were no complaints before the February 18, 2011, allegation. The physical condition limitations of the petitioner on February 18, 2011, were inconsistent with the alleged act. There were no witnesses to the allegedly hundreds of assaults over many years, always in the presence of at least one other, including co-complainants.
GROUND 3: Petitioner's due process rights were violated under the 6th and 14th Amendments when the State used leading questions despite objections.
Supporting Facts: The State developed much of its case through the use of leading questions on direct examination. State's witnesses were not of “tender years” or limited intelligence. The trial court erred in its definition of “leading question.” This resulted in substantial prejudice to the petitioner.
GROUND 4: Petitioner's right to a fair trial under due process was violated under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments by prosecutorial misconduct.
Supporting Facts: The State used “class warfare” comments to inflame the passions of the jury. The State's referencing items in closing that were not present as evidence in trial.
GROUND 5: Petitioner's due process rights were violated under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments when he was sentenced to non-minimum, consecutive sentences as a first-time offender.
Supporting Facts: The trial court initially failed to make the necessary findings on record of facts supporting non-minimum, consecutive sentences. While this was remanded back to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc entry, this should have resulted in a void sentence and a remand for the minimum concurrent sentences as envisioned and intended by the Ohio State Assembly in Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 86.
GROUND 6: Petitioner's due process rights were violated under the 6th and 14th Amendments due to the prejudicial effect of cumulative errors.
Supporting Facts: The cumulative effect of all the errors by the trial court and prosecutors that may be found harmless or otherwise individually, denied the petitioner due process and a fair trial.
GROUND 7: Petitioner's due process rights were violated under the 6th and 14th Amendments with the trial court reversal of its prior decision for severance.
Supporting Facts: The trial court established that the risk of prejudice to the petitioner of joinder was “extreme” in sustaining petitioner's motion to sever. That prejudice remained when the court reversed itself. The trial court's “decision/entry and order” is a final, appealable order, thus not subject to a motion for reconsideration and subsequent reversal. The State's late filing of its motion for reconsideration was in violation of Ohio's criminal rules and not supported by “good cause” exception. The jury was unable to make a simple and direct evaluation of the indictments regarding each alleged victim individually.

(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 1-16.)

         Procedural and Factual History

         Goldblum was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury in 2012 on one count of attempt to commit voyeurism (Ohio Revised Code § 2907.08(C)/2923.02(A)(1)) (Count 1); three counts of voyeurism (Ohio Revised Code § 2907.08(C)) (Counts 2, 3 and 4) (count 4 was later amended to include the language “for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying himself”); nine counts of rape (victim less than 13) (Ohio Revised Code § 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) (Counts 5-9 and 11-14); two counts of menacing by stalking (Ohio Revised Code § 2903.211(A)(B)(2)(d)) (Counts 10 and 17); and two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (Ohio Revised Code § 2907.04(A)(B)(3)) (Counts 15-16) (State Court Record, ECF No. 7, PageID 34). Prior to trial, the State dismissed one count of voyeurism relating to victim M.W.[1] and two counts of menacing and during trial, the State dismissed one count of rape involving R.D. The jury found Petitioner guilty on all remaining counts. Goldblum was sentenced on July 23, 2013, to a total prison term of 21 years (State Court Record, ECF No. 8, PageID 113).

         Goldblum appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County who set forth the facts of this case as follows:

[*P3] Over the course of almost a decade, Keith Goldblum molested his niece, N.D., and some friends of his daughter, L.G., during sleepovers and slumber parties held at his home. All of the victims described a similar pattern: Goldblum came into the room while the girls were sleeping, lifted the blankets off the girls, pulled down their pajama bottoms and underwear, and inserted either his fingers or an object into their vaginas or gazed at their exposed pubic area.
[*P4] Goldblum began molesting his niece, N.D., when she was five years old. He would come into the room where she was sleeping with L.G., pull off her covers and clothing, and then touch her and insert his fingers into her vagina. She would pretend to wake up or turn over, and he would eventually stop and leave the room. As she got older, she would try different things to prevent the molestation, with varying degrees of success. Tr. 635-667.
[*P5] R.D. was a close friend of L.G. One night when she was sleeping over at L.G.'s house, she awoke and found Goldblum standing over her side of the twin bed. Goldblum pulled away her covers, slid her pajamas and underpants down, and put a finger in her vagina. He removed his finger when she pretended to stir in her sleep. Later, in the same year, she fell asleep with L.G. on a pull-out couch in the living room. Once again, she awoke to find the covers pulled off, her pajama bottoms pulled down, and Goldblum staring at her pubic area. He was illuminating her pubic area with a flashlight, but then put down the flashlight and inserted something thin and cold, possibly a pen, into her vagina. Goldblum and L.G. eventually moved to a new house, but the same thing happened during sleepovers at the new house. Consequently, R.D. stopped coming over for sleepovers. Id. at ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.