NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0785n.06
No. 10-2176 FILED
Nov 22, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RONALD EDWIN KUCH, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
LLOYD RAPELJE, )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
Before: MARTIN, MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Petitioner-Appellant Ronald Kuch appeals the district court’s denial of his
petition for habeas corpus. Police officers arrested Kuch, who is currently on parole, after an animal
control officer discovered Kuch sodomizing a dead dog in a wooded area near an elementary school.
Prosecutors charged Kuch with sodomy, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.158; indecent exposure, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.335a; and resisting and obstructing an officer, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.81d(1).
Michigan’s sodomy statute, the focus of Kuch’s habeas petition, penalizes “[a]ny person who . . .
commit[s] the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any
animal.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.158.
Following his preliminary examination, Kuch moved to dismiss the sodomy charge, arguing
that the sodomy statute did not criminalize sexual acts involving an animal carcass and challenging
No. 10-2176
Kuch v. Rapelje
the statute as “unconstitutionally vague and overly broad as applied to defendants who use animal
carcasses for sexual purposes.” The state trial court rejected this challenge, and the Michigan Court
of Appeals declined to address Kuch’s arguments in an interlocutory appeal. Following the court
of appeals’ rejection of his request for an interlocutory appeal, Kuch pleaded guilty to all three
charges against him but reserved his right to challenge the constitutionality of his sodomy conviction.
After sentencing, Kuch raised the same objections in an application for leave to appeal in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. The court denied Kuch leave to appeal, citing “lack of merit in the
grounds presented,” and the Michigan Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
After exhausting his post-conviction remedies in state court, Kuch filed this habeas action
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction as “contrary to, or involv[ing] an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court denied
habeas relief, adopting the analysis of the magistrate judge as set forth in his comprehensive report
and recommendation. On appeal, Kuch reprises the arguments already rejected.
Having studied the appellate record, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court’s opinion, and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that relief under § 2254(d) is not
warranted. Because the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
-2-