FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 16, 2010
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
ROCHESTER THOMAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 09-3291
UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY
BARRACKS,
Respondent-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. NO. 5:02-CV-03265-RDR)
Submitted on the briefs
Melody Evans, Assistant Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, and
Cyd Gilman, Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas
for Appellant.
Tanya Sue Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Kansas,
and Lanny D. Welch, United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, Topeka,
Kansas for Appellee.
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Rochester Thomas, a military prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the district court dismissed. Thomas then
voluntarily abated his appeal in this court to petition a military court to consider
his claims of ineffective appellate counsel. The military court summarily denied
Thomas’s petition and, on remand, the district court again dismissed Thomas’s
habeas petition.
The issue raised in this appeal is whether the military court’s summary
dismissal rests on adequate legal grounds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(a) and, having carefully reviewed the record and arguments on appeal, we
AFFIRM.
I. Background
A brief review of the procedural background will be helpful in
understanding the legal issues on appeal.
A. Initial Court-Martial Proceedings
After Thomas deserted the Army in 1995, a military court convicted him in
absentia of various sex crimes and sentenced him to 50 years’ imprisonment.
Appellate review of Thomas’s court-martial continued despite his absence. Two
years later, Thomas was arrested in Germany after assaulting his girlfriend and
stabbing her roommate. For these crimes a military court sentenced him to 13
years’ imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge.
-2-
Shortly before Thomas’s arrest, his appointed military appellate defense
counsel in the court-martial proceedings submitted a petition to the Army Court
of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) challenging his convictions. After his arrest,
Thomas then filed a Grostefon 1 motion questioning his mental responsibility for
the sex crimes due to Gulf War Syndrome.
The ACCA granted relief by dismissing several duplicative charges but
otherwise denied Thomas’s appeal. Thomas then petitioned the Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for a grant of review, again raising Grostefon
matters. Thomas’s petition did not contain a claim of ineffective appellate
counsel. After granting two motions to extend the time to file a supplement to the
petition, the CAAF affirmed the ACCA’s decision. The Supreme Court of the
United States later denied Thomas’s petition for a writ of certiorari. United
States v. Thomas, ARMY 9502100 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 8, 2000) aff’d, 55
M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1009 (2001), reh’g denied, 535
U.S. 952 (2002).
B. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
In 2002, as a prisoner housed in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at
Fort Leavenworth, Thomas petitioned the district court in Kansas for a writ of
habeas corpus. Thomas later supplemented his petition with four allegations of
1
U.S. v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (permitting a petitioner to
personally raise issues before the courts of military review even if his or her
appellate counsel thinks the issues lack merit).
-3-
ineffective assistance by appellate counsel relating to his appeals to CAAF. 2 In
response, the government argued the ineffective appellate counsel claims could
not be reviewed because they were not raised during the CAAF appeal. In
dismissing Thomas’s habeas petition, the district court declined to examine his
ineffective appellate counsel claims because he failed to present them to the
military courts and because there was no prejudice in light of the apparent
strength of the prosecution’s case. Thomas v. U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, No. 02-
3265-RDR (D. Kan. July 28, 2004).
Thomas appealed to this court, but voluntarily abated his appeal so he
could petition the ACCA for a writ of error coram nobis to consider his
ineffective appellate counsel claims. 3 The ACCA assigned counsel from its
2
Specifically, Thomas contended the military court erred in permitting
improper expert testimony, sentencing Thomas under duplicative charges,
permitting evidence of uncharged misconduct, and denying Thomas’s petition for
a new trial as untimely. He also contended his appellate counsel was ineffective
for failing to raise the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel in not challenging the
military court’s alleged errors or the standard used by the sanity board to
determine Thomas was competent to stand trial.
3
The ACCA has the authority to issue extraordinary writs under the All
Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Dettinger v. United States, 7 M.J. 216 (C.M.A.
1979). Because of their extraordinary nature, writs are issued sparingly, and a
petitioner bears an extremely heavy burden to establish a clear and indisputable
entitlement to extraordinary relief. Dew v. U.S., 48 M.J. 639, 648 (A. Ct. Crim.
App. Apr. 23, 1998) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379,
383–84 (1953)).
Coram nobis is predicated on exceptional circumstances not apparent to the
court in its original consideration of the case. Dew, 48 M.J. at 649. Under coram
(continued...)
-4-
Defense Appellate Division to assist Thomas with the petition. Focusing on the
ineffectiveness claims, Thomas’s court-appointed counsel subsequently filed a
supplemental memorandum. In response, the government filed a 50-page
opposition brief, devoting 21 pages to the merits of Thomas’s claims. 4
In February 2006, the ACCA summarily denied the petition. We then
remanded Thomas’s appeal to the district court for additional consideration of his
ineffective appellate counsel claims in the habeas proceedings. The district court
subsequently dismissed the petition, holding the ACCA’s summary disposition
was sufficient in light of the parties’ thorough briefing on the issue. Thomas v.
U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 2009 WL 3125962 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2009).
3
(...continued)
nobis, a court can remedy an earlier disposition that is flawed because the court
misperceived or improperly assessed a material fact. Id. The error must be so
fundamental as to render the proceedings themselves irregular and invalid; in the
interests of promoting the finality of appeals, the standard for obtaining relief
through coram nobis is more stringent than the standard applicable on direct
appeal. Id.
4
The ineffective appellate counsel claims in Thomas’s ACCA petition are
based on his appellate counsel’s failure to raise Thomas’s claims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, to appeal the denial of Thomas’s motion for a
continuance, and to timely file a petition for a new trial. The government
responded to Thomas’s claims by contending the alleged failures were either not
erroneous, not prejudicial, not supported by the factual record, or predicated on
frivolous arguments.
-5-
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. Fricke v.
Sec’y of the Navy, 509 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2007). In contrast, our review
of court-martial proceedings is very limited. See Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137,
142 (1953). “[W]hen a military decision has dealt fully and fairly with an
allegation raised in that application, it is not open to a federal civil court to grant
the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence.” Id. The limited function of the civil
court is to determine whether the military have given fair consideration to each of
the petitioner’s claims. Id. at 145.
To assess the fairness of the consideration, our review of a military
conviction is appropriate only if the following four conditions are met: (1) the
asserted error is of substantial constitutional dimension, (2) the issue is one of
law rather than disputed fact, (3) no military considerations warrant a different
treatment of constitutional claims, and (4) the military courts failed to give
adequate consideration to the issues involved or failed to apply proper legal
standards. Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250, 1252–53 (10th Cir. 1990). While we
continue to apply this four-part test, our recent cases have emphasized the fourth
consideration as the most important. See, e.g., Taylor v. Inch, 343 F. App’x 343,
346–47 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming the denial of a habeas petition because the
military court gave adequate consideration to the petitioner’s claims).
-6-
B. The ACCA’s Consideration of Thomas’s Claims
Thomas argues the district court erred in applying the four-part test in
Dodson. He contends the court should have granted an evidentiary hearing
because the ACCA’s summary denial did not demonstrate full and fair
consideration of his ineffective appellate counsel claims. We disagree.
The Tenth Circuit has consistently held full and fair consideration does not
require a detailed opinion by the military court. As we observed in Watson v.
McCotter,
[w]hen an issue is briefed and argued before a military board of
review, we have held that the military tribunal has given the claim
fair consideration, even though its opinion summarily disposed of the
issue with the mere statement that it did not consider the issue
meritorious or requiring discussion.
782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir. 1986). We also observed in Watson that we give
greater deference to the military than we do to state courts in relation to
determining ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Id. at n.3 (citing Burns, 346
U.S. at 142).
Thomas draws factual distinctions between Burns and Watson to argue the
military court did not give full and fair consideration to his claims. In Burns,
lengthy opinion by the military courts demonstrated scrutiny of the trial record.
Burns, 346 U.S. at 144–45. Likewise, the military court in Watson granted oral
argument on the petitioner’s claims, and the military court’s opinion “expressly
considered” the evidence provided. Watson, 782 F.2d at 144.
-7-
In contrast, here the ACCA heard no oral argument and its order does not
spell out the reasoning for its dismissal. This lack of explicit detail is not fatal.
Our holding in Watson does not demand it. Nor do other circuits. In Armann v.
McKean, for example, the Third Circuit considered a case with similar facts in
which the CAAF neither granted oral argument on the petitioner’s claims nor
mentioned the claims in its one-sentence affirmation of the ACCA’s decision.
549 F.3d 279, 284 (3rd Cir. 2008). In that case, the government even failed to
submit a brief on the petitioner’s competency claim, although it addressed the
petitioner’s other claims. Id. at 294. Although the record did not explicitly
indicate the CAAF reviewed the petitioner’s claim, the circuit court declined to
“presume that the highest military court refused to consider the full record before
it prior to making its decision.” Id. at 295–96. The circuit noted that military
courts, like civilian courts, must diligently review all arguments presented by the
parties, which included the petitioner’s competency issue. Id. at 296. On the
question of the sufficiency of detail in the military court’s decision, the court
explained,
[e]ven if we were to find it preferable that the CAAF issue a
statement that it considered all claims including those personally
raised by the defendant, we seriously doubt that the federal civilian
courts have power to impose such a requirement on the highest
miliary court. ‘Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which
exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal
judicial establishment.’
-8-
Id. at 295 (quoting Burns, 346 U.S. at 140). 5
We also decline to presume a military appellate court has failed to consider
all the issues presented to it before making a decision. Here, the record indicates
Thomas’s court-martial conviction received an abundance of consideration
throughout the 15 years of appellate review. The ACCA received over 65 pages
of briefing in relation to Thomas’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel, at least 30 pages of which were directly focused on the merits.
In its order dismissing the habeas corpus petition, the district court noted
the parties thoroughly briefed the issues of ineffective assistance of
counsel . . . . Those submissions contain a detailed explanation of the
lengthy procedural history of this matter, the relevant facts, and a
statement of the applicable standard of review for claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, that is, the test set out in Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and applied to such claims in the
courts-martial.
5
Similarly, we routinely affirm summary dispositions of state courts in our
habeas review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA),
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), particularly when, as here, there is no material, non-record
evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Wackerly v. Workman,
580 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009); Wilson v. Workman, 577 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir.
2009). As already noted, we also give greater deference to military than we do to
state court proceedings in their dispositions of ineffective appellate counsel
claims. Burns, 346 U.S. at 142. While Burns predates AEDPA, the same
principles of comity and respect apply.
-9-
Thomas, 2009 WL 3125962 at *3. Thus, the district court correctly applied our
precedent in determining that Thomas’s claims are not entitled to additional
review because the military courts gave them full and fair consideration. 6
Although our review of court-martial proceedings is narrow, it is not
illusory. In Watson, we predicated our holding that full and fair consideration
does not require a detailed opinion or certain other indications that a military
court diligently reviewed the parties’ arguments. In a case where the briefing is
cursory and no indications of full consideration otherwise exist, we may reach a
different result. But the thoroughness and adequacy of the briefing in this case,
together with the broad deference we grant to the military in collateral review of
court-martial convictions, see Watson, 782 F.2d at 144, supports the district
court’s determination that Thomas’s claims received full and fair consideration by
the military court.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.
6
Based on our review, we conclude Thomas has not demonstrated any
potentially successful claim even if we were to reach the merits of his appeal.
-10-