United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noonan, a Michigan prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging his state court conviction on a
variety of theories. The magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation (R & R) concluding that the petition
should be denied. (ECF No. 31.) Noonan timely filed
objections, and the court granted a subsequent motion to
supplement his objections. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.)
sets forth five specific objections to the R & R,
although they overlap somewhat: (1) The magistrate judge
erred by concluding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden
to show that the trial court relied on material
misinformation of a Constitutional magnitude at sentencing;
(2) the magistrate judge erred by concluding that the State
did not violate Petitioner's plea agreement when it
imposed mandatory lifetime monitoring; (3) the magistrate
judge erred by concluding that Petitioner's plea was
valid; (4) the magistrate judge erred by concluding that the
State's failure to inform him of lifetime monitoring at
the plea hearing only violated state law and did not give
rise to a Constitutional violation that could be remedied in
a federal habeas petition; and (5) the magistrate judge
erroneously concluded that the trial court's failure to
hold a hearing before issuing an amended sentence was not
cognizable in a federal habeas petition. For the reasons to
follow, the Court will adopt the R & R as the opinion of
the Court and overrule Petitioner's objections.
Bryan Matthew Noonan is a state prisoner in the custody of
the Michigan Department of Corrections. In 2009, he pleaded
guilty in Berrien County Circuit Court to first-degree
criminal sexual conduct (CSC), Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.520b(1)(b). In exchange for his plea, the state allegedly
agreed to drop four other charges and to recommend a minimum
sentence of no more than 17 years. (See ECF No. 2.)
The circuit court subsequently sentenced him to 17 to 45
years of imprisonment and lifetime electronic monitoring.
states that he appealed his conviction and sentence to the
Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the following claims: (1)
the prosecution violated the terms of the sentencing
agreement; (2) the court mis-scored offense variables 11 and
13; (3) the court's departure from the sentencing
guidelines was not supported by substantial or compelling
reasons and was not proportionate to the offense; and (4)
Petitioner's counsel was ineffective for allowing a
sentence with improper scoring. (See id.)
Michigan Court of Appeals initially rejected the appeal, but
on reconsideration, it remanded the case for re-sentencing
with regard to offense variables 11 and 13. Petitioner
appealed the decision of the court of appeals while his
motion for reconsideration was still pending. The Michigan
Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on September 9, 2010.
The circuit court held another sentencing hearing, and on
November 1, 2010, it issued a new sentence with the same
prison term. The new sentence did not include lifetime
electronic monitoring, but three months later, the court
amended the sentence to include that requirement.
appealed the new sentence, again claiming that the state
court's reasons for departing from the sentencing
guidelines were not valid. He also claimed that lifetime
electronic monitoring is cruel and unusual punishment. On
August 23, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the
appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented. In a
motion for reconsideration, Petitioner asserted that the
circuit court erroneously scored offense variables 11 and 13
and that the sentence was invalid because the prosecution
violated the terms of the plea agreement. The motion was
denied on October 19, 2011.
subsequently appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which
denied leave to appeal on April 4, 2012, because it was not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of that decision and the
court denied reconsideration on June 25, 2012.
January 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court
Rules, in which he argued that his guilty plea was invalid
because the trial court failed to inform him that he would be
subject to lifetime electronic monitoring. The circuit court
denied the motion on April 16, 2013, because he could not
establish cause and prejudice for failing to raise the issue
in his direct appeal. Petitioner appealed that decision to
the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court,
which denied leave to appeal on October 29, 2013 and May 27,
2014, respectively, for failure to meet the burden of
establishing entitlement to relief.
then filed his habeas petition on August 5, 2014. The Court
initially dismissed the petition after undertaking the review
required by Rule 4. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) However, Petitioner
filed a timely motion for reconsideration and the Court
vacated its opinion and judgment. (ECF Nos. 14, 17). The
Court ordered the Respondent to answer the petition and
referred the matter to the magistrate judge for an R & R.
Petition largely focused on the trial court's sentence
and complications created by the lifetime electronic
monitoring component of the sentence. The magistrate judge
recommended denying the Petition in its entirety. Petitioner
now raises five specific objections to the R & R.
However, for the reasons to follow, the Court will overrule
Petitioner's objections and adopt the R &R as the
opinion of the Court.
respect to a dispositive motion, a magistrate judge issues a
report and recommendation, rather than an order. After being
served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a
magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court
judge reviews de novo the ...