Is a trial judge's independent weighing of new mitigation evidence and imposition of the death penalty at a resentencing hearing unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Hurst v. Florida, _ U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), this Court: (a) overruled Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 460-65 (1984) and Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638 (1989), (b) invalidated Florida's capital punishment statute, and (c) held that all facts necessary to impose a sentence of death must be based on a jury's verdict, not a judge’s fact finding. Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 624. James Goff was sentenced under Ohio’s judge-sentencing scheme where a jury’s death verdict is a recommendation and the trial judge alone makes the findings essential to sentence a defendant to life or death. Like Hurst, Goff's case was remanded to the trial court. It was at this sentencing, in 2015, that the trial judge reviewed, weighed and based his decision on evidence never considered by a jury. Mr. Goff appealed his case to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals and argued that he was entitled to a jury at resentencing under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 112 S.Ct. 2428 (2002). The state court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio next reviewed Goff's appeal. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the trial court's decision despite its finding that the trial court “improperly considered” new mitigation evidence at the sentencing determination. State v. Goff, 154 Ohio St.3d 218 (2018). Additionally, the court determined that the weighing process is not fact-finding subject to the Sixth Amendment. This Court in Hurst explicitly held that the trial judge is constitutionally prohibited from independently making the ultimate decision as to whether the aggravating i circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors and the defendant should be sentenced to death. Given the Hurst decision, the following question is presented: Is a trial judge’s independent weighing of new mitigation evidence and imposition of the death penalty at a resentencing hearing unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida? ii