2:14-cv-10610
E.D. Mich.Feb 19, 2014Background
- Petitioner Aimee Sword pleaded guilty in Oakland Circuit Court to first-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexual penetration of a 14‑year‑old related by blood; sentenced to 9–30 years plus lifetime electronic monitoring ("tether") after release.
- Sword argued the lifetime-tether requirement conflicted with MCL 750.520n, which she read to limit lifetime electronic monitoring to convictions involving victims under 13.
- Michigan Court of Appeals, relying on People v. Brantley, held lifetime monitoring is proper for first-degree CSC regardless of victim age; remand/decision process included a panel disagreement but the court followed Brantley under M.C.R. 7.215.
- Michigan Supreme Court denied leave. Sword filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging due process violation based on improper lifetime tether.
- District court dismissed the petition, holding the claim challenges state-law sentencing construction and is not cognizable on federal habeas because state courts are final interpreters of state law and the sentence was within statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lifetime electronic monitoring may be imposed for first‑degree CSC when victim is 14 | Sword: § 750.520n authorizes lifetime monitoring only when victim is under 13, so tether for a 14‑year‑old is unlawful | Respondent: State courts interpreted § 750.520n to permit lifetime monitoring for first‑degree CSC regardless of victim age; sentence within statutory authority | Petition dismissed—claim not cognizable on federal habeas because it rests on state‑law statutory interpretation and the sentence was not unauthorized by law |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (state courts are ultimate expositors of state law on federal habeas)
- Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) (sentences within statutory limits generally not subject to habeas review)
- McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) (federal courts may summarily dismiss legally insufficient habeas petitions)
- Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 1999) (district courts authorized to dismiss § 2254 petitions that plainly lack entitlement to relief)
- Oviedo v. Jago, 809 F.2d 326 (6th Cir. 1987) (federal habeas court does not act as additional state appellate court to review state law interpretations)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)