United States v. Chapman
2016 CCA LEXIS 93
| A.F.C.C.A. | 2016Background
- Chapman was convicted by general court-martial of attempted premeditated murder, rape, sodomy, and burglary; sentenced to dishonorable discharge and life confinement with possibility of parole. Convening authority ordered sentence executed and appeals were exhausted (cert. denied).
- Petitioner filed multiple prior writs seeking counsel and relief; courts denied appointment requests and allowed refiling with counsel.
- Petitioner filed a pro se petition styled as a writ of habeas corpus alleging the military judge failed to sua sponte instruct on false confession and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The panel considered whether military courts retain jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions after Article 76 finality and whether coram nobis relief is available.
- Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus because the court-martial was final under Article 76 and all portions of the sentence had been executed under Article 71.
- The court alternatively considered coram nobis but denied relief because petitioner failed multiple threshold requirements (alternative remedies available, sentence not served, no adequate explanation for delay).
Issues
| Issue | Chapman’s Argument | United States’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Air Force CCA has jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition after Article 76 finality | Court should hear habeas because petitioner remains confined and claims trial-judge error | Military courts lack habeas jurisdiction once court-martial is final under Article 76; Article 71 finality alone is insufficient | No jurisdiction for habeas when both Article 71 legality and Article 76 finality exist; habeas must be pursued in Article III court |
| Whether the petition may be treated as a writ of error coram nobis | Seeks relief for fundamental trial error (failure to instruct; ineffective assistance) after direct review | Coram nobis inappropriate: alternative remedies exist; petitioner still serving sentence; failed to show reason for delay | Coram nobis denied—petitioner failed threshold requirements (alternative remedies, sentence not served, no adequate explanation for delay) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (coram nobis is an extension of the original military proceeding; extraordinary remedy standard)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (habeas corpus is a separate civil action, not an extension of the original proceeding)
- Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953) (federal courts have jurisdiction over habeas petitions by military prisoners)
- Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (military courts’ authority under All Writs Act tied to existing statutory jurisdiction)
- United States v. Arness, 74 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (limits on military appellate jurisdiction; repudiated rationale relied upon by contrary cases)