MARVIN G. JOHNSON v. DAVID BOBBY, Warden - Articles

All Content

MARVIN G. JOHNSON v. DAVID BOBBY, Warden

Posted by: Stacey Shrader Joslin on Mar 19, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kort W. Gatterdam, CARPENTER LIPPS LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Charles L. Wille, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Kort W. Gatterdam, CARPENTER LIPPS LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Timothy F. Sweeney, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY F. SWEENEY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Charles L. Wille, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): READLER, DAVIS, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Angry with his ex-girlfriend for breaking up with him and making him move out of her home, Marvin Johnson kidnapped and killed her thirteen-year-old son and then raped and robbed her. An Ohio jury convicted him for his actions and recommended the death penalty. He thereafter was sentenced to death. After exhausting his appeals in state court, Johnson filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of that petition. While the case was pending before us, in 2024, the state court found Johnson seriously mentally ill, vacated his death sentence, and resentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The parties disagree about whether the new judgment renders Johnson’s petition moot and strips us of jurisdiction. It does not, save for those claims that concern the penalty phase of Johnson’s prosecution. So we move on to consider what remains of the two claims the district court certified: whether Johnson’s trial counsel was ineffective in allowing the jury to hear about Johnson’s criminal history and whether his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a Confrontation Clause claim in relation to statements made to police by a jailhouse informant. With any penalty-phase challenges now moot because of Johnson’s resentencing to life without parole, we review the claims before us as guilt-phase attacks. We AFFIRM.

Attachments: