2012 (September Term)
Hasan v. Gross, 71 M.J. 416 (to prevail on a writ of mandamus, appellant must show that: (1) there is no other adequate means to attain relief; (2) the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and (3) the issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances).
2008 (September Term)
Loving
v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (under the
standards of 28 USC § 2254(d), a
habeas review of a constitutional claim would normally employ a
deferential
review of the challenged decision).
(to
establish prejudice for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with
respect
to sentencing in a capital case, the new evidence that a habeas
petitioner
presents must differ in a substantial way - in strength and subject
matter -
from the evidence actually presented at sentencing).
Denedo
v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (for a writ
appeal, the CAAF considers the
record developed at trial and on direct appeal; it also considers the
materials
filed by the parties in the course of the writ proceedings at the court
of
criminal appeals and the appeal to the CAAF; based on the foregoing,
the CAAF
considers whether a decision on the writ appeal can be reached on the
record
before it, or whether a more fully developed factual record is required
prior
to reaching a decision on the merits).
(under the exhaustion of remedies doctrine,
courts outside the military justice system normally refrain from
collateral
review of courts-martial until all available military remedies are
exhausted).
(as a general matter, courts
outside the
military justice system will not entertain habeas petitions by military
prisoners until all available military remedies have been exhausted;
however,
the exhaustion requirement is prudential rather than jurisdictional;
the
circumstances of a particular case might warrant consideration of a
habeas
petition by an Article
(even when remedies have been
exhausted, the
scope of collateral review outside the military justice system is
constrained
by the requirement to consider whether the military justice system has
given
full and fair consideration to the claims at issue; de novo review is
appropriate only if the military justice system manifestly refused to
consider
those claims).
(a writ of error coram nobis
requests the
court that imposed the judgment to consider exceptional circumstances,
such as
new facts or legal developments, that may change the result).
(the decision of the court of
criminal appeals
on a writ petition is subject to appellate review).
(coram nobis permits
continuation of
litigation after final judgment and exhaustion or waiver of any
statutory right
of review, but only under very limited circumstances; although a
petition may
be filed at any time without limitation, a petitioner must meet
stringent
threshold requirements: (1) the alleged
error is of the most fundamental character; (2) no remedy other than
coram
nobis is available to rectify the consequences of the error; (3) valid
reasons
exist for not seeking relief earlier; (4) the new information presented
in the
petition could not have been discovered through the exercise of
reasonable
diligence prior to the original judgment; (5) the writ does not seek to
reevaluate previously considered evidence or legal issues; and (6) the
sentence
has been served, but the consequences of the erroneous conviction
persist).
United
States v. Beck, 56 MJ 426 (issuance of an
extraordinary
writ staying court-martial proceedings requires the careful exercise of
discretion).