Goodson v. Commonwealth

1

COREY D. GOODSON, SR., SOMETIMES KNOWN AS COREY DEON GOODSON, SR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

No. 1347-23-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia

September 10, 2024

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Steven B. Novey ^[1] Judge

Brett P. Blobaum, Senior Appellate Attorney (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Linda R. Scott, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges AtLee, Friedman and Callins Argued at Richmond, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

FRANK K. FRIEDMAN JUDGE

Corey D. Goodson, Sr., appeals his voluntary manslaughter conviction and sentence.^[2] He contends that the trial court erred by refusing two jury instructions related to his self-defense claim. He also argues that the trial court erred by refusing to vacate the sentencing order and hold a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that: (1) when a judge who had not presided over the trial handled sentencing, the court did not review the entire record before the sentencing hearing; and (2) a witness at that hearing misrepresented her relationship to the victim. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

We recite the facts "in the 'light most favorable' to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court." Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va.App. 225 231 (2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires us to "discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom." Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).

In January 2022, Goodson drove his girlfriend, Maritta Ellis, to a police station in Chesterfield to pick up Ellis's daughter from Ellis's former husband, Stuart Jeffries. Police security cameras recorded Goodson parking his car in front of Jeffries's truck. Jeffries then maneuvered around Goodson's vehicle to park in a different spot. Officer Michael Dean was in a parked police vehicle nearby.

Ellis exited Goodson's car and walked toward Jeffries 's truck. She testified for Goodson that Jeffries yelled at her because Goodson had parked too close. After about 30 seconds, Ellis walked back toward Goodson's car with her daughter.

Once Ellis returned to Goodson's car, Goodson exited and walked toward Jeffries. Jeffries approached Goodson as well and swung his fist at Goodson's face. A fist fight ensued, which Ellis tried to deescalate. After 15 to 20 seconds, Goodson backed up, pulled a firearm from his pocket, and shot Jeffries in the throat. Jeffries died at the scene from the single gunshot wound.

The police interviewed Goodson at the police station that evening. At trial, the Commonwealth played several short clips from that interview. Goodson explained to the interrogating officer that he had approached Jeffries to tell him to stop "mouthing off" to Ellis, and Jeffries responded by punching Goodson. Goodson told the police that, while Jeffries continued to fight him, Goodson pulled out his gun and told Jeffries to stop. Jeffries "kept on approaching," however, and Goodson shot him. Goodson admitted, "I know I did wrong" but maintained that he tried to deescalate the conflict.

Goodson testified that he had heard Jeffries threaten Ellis and confronted Jeffries because he was afraid for Ellis's safety. Once the confrontation began, he tried to persuade Jeffries to leave and feared that Jeffries would kill him. He claimed that he carried the gun for his protection. He admitted that he had been convicted of six felonies.

The trial court provided the jury with model instructions for justifiable and excusable self-defense but rejected two additional instructions that Goodson argued were necessary to clarify the model instructions. The jury convicted Goodson of voluntary manslaughter.^[3]

Different judges presided over the sentencing hearing and trial. The sentencing judge affirmed at the beginning of the sentencing hearing that he reviewed the presentence report, the victim impact statement, and the trial transcript. The judge had not reviewed the surveillance video but watched the footage twice during the hearing and confirmed that he would consider the video in sentencing Goodson. Andrea Rivers testified at sentencing that Jeffries was her "little brother" and described his death's impact on his family.

The court sentenced Goodson to ten years' imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter with no time suspended.^[4] In explaining the sentence, the court discussed Goodson's criminal history, his possession of a firearm despite having felony convictions, his decision to escalate a fist fight into a gun fight, and the harm to Jeffries's daughter. The court did not reference Rivers's testimony. The court found from its review of the surveillance video that Goodson initiated the confrontation with Jeffries.

Goodson later moved to vacate the sentence and requested a new sentencing hearing. He asserted that a new hearing was required because the sentencing judge did not review each exhibit before the sentencing hearing, which Goodson argued was required by Code § 19.2-154. Goodson also asserted that an independent investigation revealed that Rivers was Jeffries's "god-sister," not his biological sister, and that the court should not have considered her testimony at sentencing.

At a subsequent hearing, the court asked Goodson which exhibits he believed would mitigate his sentence. Goodson referred the court to the surveillance video and the interrogation videos, which he argued showed his concern for Jeffries. The court asked Goodson if he objected to the court reviewing those videos before ruling on Goodson's motion. Goodson responded that the court should review them alongside the transcript to provide the necessary context. The court agreed that it would do so to determine whether to change its opinion about sentencing. Goodson responded, "I appreciate that, Your Honor."

The court left the bench and returned an hour and a half later. The court stated that it had reviewed every exhibit, including each video. The court explained, however, that the exhibits did "not change [the court's] mind one bit that the sentence was right and appropriate, given the defendant's actions." As for Rivers, the court explained that it did not remember whether she testified that she was Goodson's sister because the court "was more concerned about the impact" on Jeffries's daughter. The court clarified that Rivers's testimony that she was Jeffries's sister did not impact the sentence the court imposed. Accordingly, the court denied the motion.

ANALYSIS

I. Jury Instructions

"A trial court 'has broad discretion over whether to give or deny proposed jury instructions.'" Taylor v Commonwealth, 77 Va.App. 149, 166 (2023) (quoting Huguely v. Commonwealth, 63 Va.App. 92, 129 (2014)). We review a challenge to jury instructions solely to determine "that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises." Id. (quoting Molina v Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 671 (2006)). It is not reversible error to refuse even an instruction that correctly states the law if the given instructions adequately cover all issues. Id. (citing Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 562, 568 (2003)).

A defendant must "produce some evidence to support a claim of self-defense" because it is an affirmative defense. Id. at 167-68 (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562 (1978)). If he does so, the Commonwealth bears the burden of persuading the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Id. at 168.

Virginia recognizes two types of self-defense: justifiable and excusable. Bell v. Commonwealth, 66 Va.App. 479, 487 (2016). Justifiable self-defense requires the defendant to prove that he had no fault "in provoking or bringing on the difficulty." Id. (citing Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96 (1958)). Excusable self-defense applies when the defendant was at some fault but "retreated as far as he safely could under the circumstances in a good faith attempt to abandon the fight" and "made known his desire for peace by word or act." Id. at 489.

The trial court gave Instruction 15 for justifiable self-defense, which is nearly identical to Virginia Model Criminal Instruction 33.800:

If you believe that the defendant was without fault in provoking or bringing on the fight or difficulty, and if you further believe that:

1. That the defendant reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in imminent danger of being killed or that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm; and

2. That the defendant used no more force, under the circumstances as they appeared to him than was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the perceived harm,

Then the killing was in self-defense, and you shall find the defendant not guilty. The trial court also gave Instruction 16 for excusable self-defense, which largely tracks Virginia Model Criminal Instruction 33.810:

If you believe that the defendant was to some degree at fault in provoking or bringing on the fight or difficulty, and if you further believe that when attacked:

1. That the defendant retreated as far as he safely could under the circumstances in a good faith attempt to abandon the fight; and

2. made known his desire for peace by word or act; and

3. that the defendant reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of being killed or that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm, and

4. that the defendant used no more force, under the circumstances as they appeared to

...