## Facts

- Michael Garrison, a Michigan prisoner, pleaded guilty in state court to one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under M.C.L. § 750.520d(1)(a) for sexual penetration of a thirteen-year-old.
- At the plea proceeding (May 9, 1994), Garrison admitted penile-vaginal penetration.
- The complainant testified she was thirteen, left home early in the morning to ride with Garrison, and later had intercourse with him in a bedroom at his father’s house; she described the encounter as consensual.
- Under the statute, consent is not a defense when the complainant is at least thirteen and under sixteen.
- As part of the plea agreement, an additional CSC-III count and a habitual offender enhancement were dismissed.
- Garrison was sentenced to 3½ to 15 years’ imprisonment.
- After unsuccessful state appellate and post-conviction efforts, Garrison filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

## Issues

1. Whether due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires Michigan’s CSC-III statute to include a mens rea element regarding the complainant’s age.
2. Whether the state courts’ rejection of Garrison’s constitutional challenge warranted federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
3. Whether any asserted defect in the guilty plea process provided a basis for federal habeas relief.

## Decision

- The district court denied the § 2254 petition.
- The court held that the absence of a knowledge-of-age requirement in M.C.L. § 750.520d(1)(a) did not, by itself, violate the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
- The court concluded the state courts’ adjudication was not contrary to, and did not unreasonably apply, clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
- The court found no constitutional basis to disturb the guilty plea and resulting conviction and sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas relief under AEDPA is available only if the state decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, or rests on an unreasonable factual determination. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
- A state statutory rape scheme may treat the victim’s age as a strict-liability element without violating due process absent clearly established Supreme Court authority requiring scienter as to age.
- For offenses defined to criminalize sexual penetration with a minor in a protected age range, a complainant’s factual consent may be legally irrelevant as a matter of state law.
- After a guilty plea, federal habeas review generally centers on whether the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent rather than on waived non-jurisdictional defects.

## Conclusion

The court denied habeas relief because Supreme Court precedent did not clearly establish a constitutional requirement that statutory rape offenses include a knowledge-of-age element, and AEDPA deference foreclosed relief where the state courts upheld Michigan’s strict-liability CSC-III statute and the validity of Garrison’s guilty plea.


Garrison v. Elo, 156 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Mich. 2001)