UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ERIC THOMPSON,

Petitioner, Case No. 14-14203 

v. HON. AVERN COHN

JEFF LARSON,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner James Eric

Thompson, (Petitioner), is a state inmate at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St.

Louis, Michigan following his conviction on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual

conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520b(1)(B). Petitioner was also sentenced to lifetime electronic

monitoring upon his release from prison. Petitioner says that the requirement he serve

lifetime electronic monitoring was contrary to Michigan law. As will be explained,

Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on habeas review. Accordingly, the petition will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief may be granted.

II. Background

Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and

was sentenced to thirteen to thirty years in prison. Petitioner filed a direct appeal. The

Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence. People v. Thompson, No. 296578

(Mich.Ct.App. April 2, 2010). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme

2:14-cv-14203-AC-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 82
Court remanded for re-sentencing, finding that Offense Variable 8 of the Michigan

Sentencing Guidelines had been improperly scored. People v. Thompson, 488 Mich.

888 (2010).

On remand, Petitioner was re-sentenced to one hundred and eleven months to

thirty years in prison. Petitioner was also ordered to be placed on lifetime electronic

monitoring under M.C.L. § 750.520n. Petitioner again appealed. The state courts

affirmed his sentence. People v. Thompson, No. 311265 (Mich. Ct. App. May 7, 2013);

lv. den. 495 Mich. 882 (2013).

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following ground:

The trial court erred in sentencing defendant to lifetime electronic monitoring. 

III. Analysis

A.

Federal courts are also authorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears

legally insufficient on its face. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A federal

district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly

appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits that are attached to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke, 178 F. 3d 434,

436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In

this Circuit, a district court has a duty to screen and dismiss a petition that on its face

does not entitled a petitioner to relief. See Allen v. Perini, 424 F. 3d 134, 140-41 (6th

Cir. 1970). 

B.

Here, Petitioner says he is entitled to habeas relief because the trial court erred

2

2:14-cv-14203-AC-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 83
in sentencing him to lifetime monitoring. Petitioner contends that under state law a

person cannot be sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring unless the victim was

under thirteen years old and the victim was fourteen years old at the time of the sexual

assaults.

State courts are the final arbiters of state law. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S.

74, 76 (2005); Sanford v. Yukins, 288 F.3d 855, 860 (6th Cir. 2002). Therefore, claims

which arise out of a state trial court’s sentencing decision are not normally cognizable

on federal habeas review, unless the habeas petitioner can show that the sentence

imposed exceeded the statutory limits or is wholly unauthorized by law. See Vliet v.

Renico, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1014 (E.D. Mich. 2002). This is so because violations of

state law and procedure which do not infringe specific federal constitutional protections

do not present claims under section 2254. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991). As explained below, Petitioner’s sentence to lifetime electronic monitoring is not

against state law; indeed, it was required by state law.

M.C.L. § 750.520n provides: “A person convicted [of first-degree CSC] or

[second-degree CSC] for criminal sexual conduct committed by an individual 17 years

old or older against an individual less than 13 years of age shall be sentenced to lifetime

electronic monitoring....”. Michigan’s first-degree criminal sexual conduct statute,

however, requires that any defendant who is convicted of that offense shall be

sentenced “to lifetime electronic monitoring under section 520n” without any limitation

as to the age of the victim. See M.C.L. § 750.520b(2)(d). 

In People v. Brantley, 296 Mich. App 546, 557-59 (2012), the Michigan Court of

Appeals held that M.C.L. § 750.520n(1) requires a state court in Michigan to sentence a

3

2:14-cv-14203-AC-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 84
defendant who is convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct to lifetime electronic

monitoring, regardless of the age of the defendant or the victim. The Michigan Court of

Appeals concluded, based upon the “last antecedent rule” of statutory construction, that

the age restrictions in Mich. Comp. Laws § MCL 750.520n(1) applied only to convictions

under Michigan’s second-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, M.C.L. § 750.520c,

but did not pertain to convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Id., at 557. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals further noted that M.C.L. § 750.520b(2)(d), which

requires lifetime monitoring for defendants convicted of first-degree criminal sexual

conduct, was “silent” as to age of the victim, whereas M.C.L. § 750.520c(2)(b)

specifically limited lifetime monitoring for convictions for second-degree criminal sexual

conduct only if the defendant was over seventeen years old and the victim was under

thirteen years of age. Id., at 558. Other panels of the court of appeals panels have

reached the same conclusion. See People v. Johnson, 298 Mich. App. 128

(2012)(lifetime electronic monitoring was mandatory for defendant sentenced to prison

for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, regardless of ages of defendant or victim at

time of offenses); People v. King, 297 Mich. App. 465(2012)(same).

Thus, Petitioner’s claim that he was sentenced to lifetime monitoring in violation

of Michigan law fails to present a viable habeas claim.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the petition is DISMISSED.

Furthermore, reasonable jurists would not debate the Court’s assessment of

Petitioner's claim, nor conclude that the issues deserve encouragement to proceed

further. The Court therefore DECLINES to grant a certificate of appealability under 28 

4

2:14-cv-14203-AC-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 85
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1

 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 7, 2014

Detroit, MI

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, November 7, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

1

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters

a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

5

2:14-cv-14203-AC-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 11/07/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 86