St John v. Scutt
Filing
24
ORDER granting 23 Motion for Reconsideration re 21 Memorandum Opinion & Order, Granting certificate of appealability on habeas claim six only. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DGoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER PAUL ST. JOHN,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 08-14524
v.
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEBRA L. SCUTT,
Respondent.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
In 2008, petitioner Christopher Paul St. John filed a pro se habeas corpus petition seeking
relief from his state conviction for accosting a child for immoral purposes. The first and third
habeas claims challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s denial of
Petitioner’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. The second claim alleged prosecutorial
misconduct, and the fourth and fifth claims challenged the state courts’ treatment of Petitioner’s
motion for relief from judgment and his subsequent appeal. The sixth and final claim alleged
that the accosting statute, which Petitioner was charged with violating, was unconstitutionally
vague and overbroad. On March 21, 2011, the Court denied the habeas petition, but granted a
certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s first and third claims regarding the sufficiency of the
evidence and the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on
the accosting charge.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Court
understands the motion to seek a certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s sixth claim regarding
the constitutionality of the statute under which Petitioner was convicted. The statute reads:
A person who accosts, entices, or solicits a child less than 16 years of age,
regardless of whether the person knows the individual is a child or knows the
actual age of the child, or an individual whom he or she believes is a child less
than 16 years of age with the intent to induce or force that child or individual to
commit an immoral act, to submit to an act of sexual intercourse or an act of gross
indecency, or to any other act of depravity or delinquency, or who encourages a
child less than 16 years of age, regardless of whether the person knows the
individual is a child or knows the actual age of the child, or an individual whom
he or she believes is a child less than 16 years of age to engage in any of those
acts is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or
a fine of not more than $4,000.00, or both.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.145a.
The Court stated in its dispositive opinion and order that the language in the statute was
definite and not unconstitutionally vague. The Court opined that a person of ordinary
intelligence would not speculate about the meaning of the words and would know that a sexual
act with a person less than sixteen years of age was prohibited.
The Court may grant a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner makes “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy
this standard, a petitioner must demonstrate “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district
court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
The Court finds, upon further review of the issue, that reasonable jurists could debate the
Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the accosting statute. At a
minimum, reasonable jurists could conclude that the issue warrants encouragement to proceed
further. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [Dkt. #23] is GRANTED to the
2
extent that Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability on one additional issue. A certificate of
appealability may issue on habeas claim six, which alleges that the accosting statute is
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The motion is denied in all other respects.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 2, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means and upon:
Christopher St John
186536
OAKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
1500 CABERFAE HIGHWAY
MANISTEE, MI 49660
by U.S. Mail on June 2, 2011.
s/Denise Goodine
Case Manager
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?