Opinion
Case No. 97-3353-RDR
July 25, 2000
Ray A White, petitioner, pro se.
Jackie A. Rapstine and Mary K. Ramirez, Office of United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for TOGO (NMN) WEST, Honorable respondent; MARVIN L NICKELS, Commandant respondent, and SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a prisoner at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. This matter is ripe for review, and the court enters the following findings and order.
Petitioner has since been released from confinement.
Factual background
In 1993, petitioner was convicted by a court-martial of four specifications of carnal knowledge and two specification of sodomy. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for seven years, total forfeitures, and reduction to the grade and rank of Private E-1. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence.
The conviction was affirmed on appeal before the Army Court of Military Review, and petitioner's request for review by the Court of Military Appeals was denied. In October 1997, petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) presenting the issues he raises in this habeas corpus action. The petition was summarily denied.
The full text of the order reads: On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, it is, by the Court, this 12th day of November, 1997, ORDERED: That said petition is hereby denied. (Doc. 7, Attach. 12.)
Petitioner now seeks habeas corpus relief, alleging his guilty pleas were involuntary and coerced, his pleas were factually untrue, and that trial counsel erred in allowing him to enter guilty pleas.
Standard of review
A federal court has limited authority to review court-martial proceedings. The scope of review is initially limited to determining whether the claims raised by the petitioner were given full and fair consideration by the military courts. Lips v. Commandant United States Disciplinary Barracks, 997 F.2d 808, 811 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091. (1994). If the issues have been given full and fair consideration in the military courts, the district court should not reach the merits and should deny the petition. Id. When a military court decision has dealt fully and fairly with an allegation raised in a federal habeas petition, it is not open to the federal court to grant the writ by reassessing the evidentiary determinations. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142 (1976).
If an issue is briefed and argued before the military court and is disposed of, even summarily, the federal habeas court will find that the issue has been given full and fair consideration. Watson v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 (1986). Generally, a civil court may consider claims by a military prisoner if the claims were raised in the military court and the military court refused to consider them. Id. If an issue was not raised before the military courts, the federal habeas court will deem that issue waived and not subject to review. Id.
Even where the federal court may reach the merits of a petition, its review is limited. In Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250 (10th Cir. 1990), this review was defined by four factors a federal court may consider in evaluating a petition for habeas corpus relief from a military conviction: (1) whether the claimed error is of substantial constitutional dimension; (2) whether a legal, rather than a factual, issue is involved; (3) whether military considerations warrant different treatment of constitutional claims such that federal civil court intervention would be inappropriate; and (4) whether the military courts have given adequate consideration to the claimed error and applied the proper legal standard. Id. at 1252-53.
Discussion
Petitioner did not raise his claims for relief on direct appeal from his conviction, but he did present them in. a later petition for extraordinary relief filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The court therefore does not agree the claims were not raised in the military courts. However, this finding alone does not end the inquiry. Rather, the court must consider whether the claims were given full and fair consideration and whether the factors outlined in Dodson v. Zelez provide a basis for additional consideration in the federal habeas court. Having examined the limited portions of the record supplied by respondent in light of the Dodson factors, the court concludes that although it is unclear whether this claim was brief and argued as contemplated by Watson, further review of this issue on habeas is not warranted due to the nature of the claim, as the voluntariness of the petitioner's guilty plea is essentially a question of fact.
The Tenth Circuit has recognized repeatedly that a federal habeas court generally should respect factual conclusions that "the respondent was an intelligent individual . . . well represented by competent and capable counsel, and the inferences fairly deducible from these facts." Phillips v. Murphy, 796 F.2d 1303, 1306 (10th Cir. 1986) (citing Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 435 (1983))See also Gurule v. Turner, 461 F.2d 1083, 1083 (10th Cir. 1972) ("Whether the guilty plea was coerced and involuntary is ordinarily a question of fact. . . .") Here, the record demonstrates the military judge conducted a thorough examination of petitioner when he entered the plea, and the factual nature of the inquiry militates against review on habeas corpus. Accordingly, the court concludes further habeas corpus review of the petitioner's claims is not appropriate due to the deference owed to the military court's assessment of these issues.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the petition for habeas corpus is dismissed and all relief is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 25th day of July, 2000, at Topeka, Kansas.