Goosman v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the “limitation of retroactivity announced in Heemstra to cases on direct appeal where the issue has been preserved did not violate federal due process”
• noting that the ruling in Heemstra was clearly a change in the law and not merely a clarification
• concluding limitation of retroactivity announced in Heemstra did not violate federal due process
• holding federal due process did not require retroactive application of Heemstra
• concluding a postconviction applicant did not raise equal protection or separation of powers arguments in his application for postconviction relief, the 7 district court did not rule on these issues, and as a result, these issues could not “be raised for the first time on appeal”
• noting the Heemstra court stated its holding was only applicable to the present case and those defendants whose direct appeal was pending, and further holding the non-retroactive application of the Heemstra decision did not violate federal due process rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).