Compeau v. Romanowski
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:16-cv-10558
HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Dennis Compeau filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus,
challenging his convictions for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct
involving penetration and attempted kidnapping. On October 31, 2017, the Court denied
the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). On November
17, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 15.) He later
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. For
the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Mr. Compeau’s convictions arise from the assault and attempted kidnapping of
Michelle Krappe in Mount Pleasant, Michigan on April 2, 1998. In December of 1998, a
jury found Mr. Compeau guilty of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct
and attempted kidnapping. Thereafter, he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 25
to 50 years for the assault conviction and 20 to 40 years for the attempted kidnapping
Mr. Compeau raised four claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus: (1) the
trial court erred in departing upwards on resentencing because he was a third, and not a
fourth, habitual offender; (2) the sentence was unsupported by substantial and compelling
reasons; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to
present an alibi defense; and (4) his due process rights were violated when the trial court
allowed an unduly suggestive photo array line up. This Court denied the petition,
concluding that his resentencing claims were without merit, the Michigan Court of
Appeals reasonably addressed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the photo
array identification was devoid of suggestive procedures. (ECF No. 13.) In the instant
motion, he asks the Court to reconsider his ineffective assistance of counsel and photo
U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant
demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and
that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. Ward v.
Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004)(citing L.R. 7.1(g)(3)). A
motion for reconsideration which merely presents “the same issues ruled upon by the
Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,” shall be denied. Id.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In his petition, Mr. Compeau argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to pursue an alibi defense. In the instant motion for reconsideration, Mr.
Compeau first raises an issue with the Court’s analysis of his ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. In support, he points to a Mecosta County Sheriff’s Office report,
indicating that Fred Nostrant called 911 at 8:23 p.m. on April 2, 1998 to report seeing a
suspicious white van in Remus. (ECF No. 19.)1 Mr. Compeau asserts that, because his
van was seen in Remus at 8:23 p.m., this report proves that he could not have been in
Mount Pleasant to commit the attack at around 8:44 p.m. However, as addressed by this
Court in its Opinion and Order denying the petition, Mr. Nostrant testified during the trial
that he actually saw the van at 7:30 p.m. that evening, leaving plenty of time for Mr.
Compeau to drive to Mount Pleasant before 8:44 p.m., when the 911 call reporting the
attack was received. (ECF No. 13 at Pg. ID 1821.)
Petitioner therefore advances the same argument that he made in his initial petition
for writ of habeas corpus, which was considered and addressed by this Court when it
denied Mr. Compeau habeas relief and declined to grant him a COA. Petitioner’s request
for reconsideration will therefore be denied, because he is merely presenting an issue
On November 17, 2017, Petitioner filed a document requesting a 21-day extension of
time in which to file new evidence, including a Mecosta County Sheriff’s Office police
report and a 911-tape from Mecosta County’s call center. The Court received the police
report, as well as additional correspondence from Mr. Compeau indicating that the 911tape was unavailable. Nevertheless, the 911-tape, like the police report, does not aid the
Court in its analysis of this motion for reconsideration.
which was already ruled upon by this Court, expressly, when the Court denied Mr.
Compeau’s application for writ of habeas corpus. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d
547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). In particular, this Court directly addressed the ineffective
assistance of counsel issue as it relates to Mr. Compeau’s purported alibi defense.
Petitioner raises no new arguments and does not identify a palpable defect by which the
court and parties have been misled. His motion for reconsideration will not be granted on
Photo Array Claim
Mr. Compeau briefly contends that he believes the photo array was tainted in some
way, but does not develop his argument. Nevertheless, the Court addressed his concerns
related to the photo array when it denied his petition. He raises no new arguments as to
why the victim identification was the result of suggestive procedures. Nor does he
identify any palpable defect that would result in a different disposition of the case. He is
not entitled to relief on this claim.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED. (ECF No. 15.)
Dated: January 9, 2017
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of
record on January 9, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
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?