2008 (Transition)
Denedo
v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (the All Writs
Act provides that all courts
established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law; the Act requires two separate determinations: first, whether the requested writ is in aid
of a court’s jurisdiction; and second, whether the requested writ is
necessary
or appropriate).
(although military appellate
courts are among
those empowered to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act,
the Act
confines a court to issuance of process in aid of its existing
statutory
jurisdiction and does not enlarge that jurisdiction).
(the CAAF is not given
authority, by the All
Writs Act or otherwise, to oversee all matters arguably related to
military
justice, or to act as a plenary administrator even of criminal
judgments it has
affirmed; there is no source of continuing jurisdiction for the CAAF
over all
actions administering sentences that it at one time had the power to
review).
(when courts within the
military justice
system lack subject matter jurisdiction over an action, such as an
administrative separation, they cannot invoke the All Writs Act to
enlarge
their jurisdiction to review the administrative action, even if it is
based
upon the results of a court-martial).
(when a petitioner seeks
collateral relief to
modify an action that was taken within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the
military justice system, such as the findings or sentence of a
court-martial, a
writ that is necessary or appropriate may be issued under the All Writs
Act in
aid of the court’s existing jurisdiction).
(because the
All Writs Act serves as a
residual authority, a writ is not necessary or appropriate under the
statute if
another adequate legal remedy is available; the determination of
whether
another remedy is adequate requires a contextual analysis).
(a writ of error coram nobis
should be brought
before the court that rendered the judgment).
(in the military justice
system, the trial
court - the court-martial - does not have independent jurisdiction over
a case
after the military judge authenticates the record and the convening
authority
forwards the record after taking action; because the trial court is not
available for collateral review under the UCMJ or the MCM, collateral
review
within the military justice system does not occur at the trial court
level).
(the courts of criminal
appeals, the
first-level standing courts in the military justice system, provide an
appropriate forum for consideration of coram nobis petitions regarding
courts-martial; during the initial consideration of a case, they engage
in de
novo consideration of the record and expressly act on the findings and
sentence; with respect to collateral review of the present case, they
are well-positioned
to determine whether corrective action on the findings and sentence is
warranted, including ordering any factfinding proceedings that may be
necessary).
(the court of criminal appeals
is an
appropriate forum to receive and consider a writ of coram nobis that
involves a
collateral challenge to that court’s approval of the findings and
sentence in a
court-martial, where the court-martial that convicted appellant had
jurisdiction over both the person and the offense and the court of
criminal
appeals had jurisdiction to review and approve the findings and
sentence on
direct review).
(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).
(when reviewing an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim raised via a coram nobis petition, petitioner must first
satisfy the
threshold requirements for a writ of coram nobis; if the petitioner
does so,
the court then analyzes, in the second tier, the ineffective assistance
of
counsel claim under Strickland v.
Washington, 466 US 668 (1984)).
(where a claim arises under the All Writs Act,
the petitioner must establish a clear and indisputable right to the
requested
relief).
(appellant’s coram nobis petition challenging
his court-martial conviction on the ground that his counsel was
ineffective for
failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty
pleas met
the threshold requirements of coram nobis review; although appellant
had served
his sentence, the alleged error was of the most fundamental character,
there
was no other adequate remedy because appellant was not in custody and
could not
obtain relief through a writ of habeas corpus, appellant did not seek
earlier
relief because the immigration consequences of his pleas did not become
known
to him until the government initiated deportation proceedings, the new
information about the immigration consequences could not have been
discovered
through the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to the original
judgment,
the writ does not seek to reevaluate previously considered evidence or
legal
issues, and the sentence has been served, but serious consequences
persist –
the initiation of deportation proceedings that rely primarily on
appellant’s
court-martial conviction as the basis for deportation).
(appellant’s claim that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel in a court-martial proceeding when
his
counsel told him that he would not face deportation if he pleaded
guilty at a
special court-martial facially established a sufficient basis for coram
nobis
review, but a ruling on his petition would be premature without a
government
response and consideration by the court of criminal appeals as to
whether his
counsel’s performance was deficient and, if so, whether appellant was
prejudiced thereby).
2006
Loving
v.
United States, 62 M.J. 235 (while the All Writs Act authorizes
employment
of extraordinary writs, it confines the authority to the issuance of
process in
aid of the issuing court’s jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that
jurisdiction;
the power of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under the
All Writs
Act is essentially equitable and, as such, not generally available to
provide
alternatives to other adequate remedies at law; a writ may not be used
when
another method of review will suffice; the All Writs Act is a residual
source
of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute;
where a
statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that
authority, and not the All Writs Act that is controlling).
(a
writ of error
coram nobis remains appropriate when no other remedy is available; if a
court
may issue a writ of habeas corpus under the All Writs Act to address
issues
raised by petitioner, a coram nobis writ is not appropriate; the U.S.
Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces is empowered under the All Writs Act to
grant
extraordinary relief where appropriate; the writ of habeas corpus is
available
to the military accused and may be filed in this Court under the All
Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); the writ of coram nobis is thus an inappropriate
procedural vehicle for a petitioner to challenge the legality of his
death
sentence because a writ of habeas corpus is the proper pleading).
2005