United States v. Private E1 RONALD GRAY
70 M.J. 646
A.C.C.A.2012Background
- Gray was convicted by a general court-martial in 1988 of premeditated murder, rape, robbery, sodomy, burglary, and larceny, receiving death, dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to E1.
- Convictions were affirmed by the Army Court of Military Review and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; the President approved the death sentence in 2008.
- Execution was scheduled for December 2008 but stayed pending Gray's petition for extraordinary relief; Gray filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which remains pending.
- On February 11, 2011 Gray filed the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of coram nobis in this court; the government answered and Gray replied.
- The court must assess whether coram nobis relief is available given final judgments under Article 76 and whether other remedies exist; it also notes Denedo limits on military coram nobis review.
- The court ultimately DENIES the petition, holding that a remedy other than coram nobis (federal habeas) is available and that the merits should be decided in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is available where final judgments exist. | Gray asserts coram nobis is appropriate to correct fundamental errors. | Belcher argues final judgments bar coram nobis and other remedies exist. | Denied; coram nobis not available given final judgments and available remedies. |
| Whether a remedy other than coram nobis is available to Gray. | Gray relies on military channels for relief post-conviction. | Government notes federal habeas remains an available remedy. | Gr ay has an available remedy other than coram nobis (federal habeas); petition denied on this basis. |
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis given final Article 76 judgments. | jurisdiction should allow coram nobis in aid of its authority. | Article 76 finality limits collateral review; appellate courts retain limited coram nobis authority per Denedo. | Lacks jurisdiction to grant coram nobis relief; merits belong in federal court present habeas proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. United States (Loving I), 62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (finality concepts for Article 76; guidance on coram nobis in aid of jurisdiction)
- Loving v. United States (Loving II), 64 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (continued finality and habeas considerations)
- Denedo v. United States (Denedo I), 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (limits on collateral review; availability of habeas in military context)
- Denedo v. United States (Denedo II), 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (expanded coram nobis/vacatur concepts in post-Article III contexts)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (threshold requirements for extraordinary relief)