Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Arthur Frederick Goode, Jr., Individually and as Next Friend Acting on Behalf of Arthur Frederick Goode, III v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary of Corrections, Dept. Of Corrections of the State of Florida
Citations: 731 F.2d 1482; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23869Docket: 84-3224
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; April 3, 1984; Federal Appellate Court
Arthur Frederick Goode, III, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death for murdering a ten-year-old boy, is appealing a decision denying his habeas corpus petition. The case has a history of prior appeals, including decisions from the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the denial of his writ in 1984, the Florida governor appointed a commission of psychiatrists who concluded that Goode understood the death penalty's nature and implications, leading to a signed execution warrant scheduled for April 5, 1984. On March 30, 1984, Goode filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, raising two new constitutional issues: his claimed insanity, which he argues makes execution unconstitutional, and a procedural due process challenge to Florida Statute 922.07. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed both claims. Subsequently, Goode filed a similar petition in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which was denied without a hearing. The district court also declined to issue a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution. The appeals court reviewed Goode's claims, affirming that the statute met procedural due process standards and referencing relevant case law. Although the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that an insane person cannot be executed, the appeals court found that Goode could not raise the insanity claim due to an abuse of the writ, referencing his prior habeas case in which he argued he was not competent to stand trial. The court rejected Goode's assertion that his insanity claim was newly valid based on the governor's procedures under Florida law. Goode had the opportunity to assert a claim of post-conviction insanity as a defense against execution based on substantive due process and the Eighth Amendment from the time he was sentenced to death. He could have raised this issue when his first execution warrant was signed in 1982; however, he did not do so in his state merits appeal, state collateral attack, or first federal habeas case. Had he timely raised the insanity claim, it could have led to a court determination of his mental competency, potentially allowing for an updated assessment based on changing circumstances. Nonetheless, he cannot postpone raising the issue until just before execution. Consequently, the motion for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay have both been denied. There is no established standard regarding insanity that prohibits execution, as noted in Gray v. Lucas.