Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03290/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TEN'l'H CIRCUIT 

M;~R 11991 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JEFFREY L. HARDISON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE H. BRAXTON, Colonel, 

United States Disciplinary 

Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3290 

(D.C. No. 85-CV-3089) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AHO JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. Petitioner, an inmate at the disciplinary barracks 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3290 Document: 010110031055 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 1 
.t.. 

at Fort Leavenworth, challenges the jurisdiction of a military 

court martial to try him for the murder of a Philippine citizen. 

The district court denied his petition, and we affirm. 

Petitioner asserts two claims. First, he contends the 

district court erred in holding the government of the Republic of 

the Philippines formally waived its primary jurisdiction to try 

him. The district court, however, found that the Philippine 

government lost primary jurisdiction over petitioner because he 

was not physically present in the Republic when its charges were 

filed. The court further held the Philippines "effectively waived 

its subject matter jurisdiction" when it dismissed its charges 

against petitioner. (emphasis added). 

conclusions. 

We agree with these 

Next, petitioner contends the military court had no 

jurisdiction over him because the offense with which he was 

charged was not "service connected," citing O'Callahan v. Parker, 

395 U.S. 258 (1969). The Supreme Court overruled O'Callahan in 

Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987), specifically 

eliminating the "service connected" test as a basis for military 

court jurisdiction. Id. at 450. 

Petitioner's motions to proceed without payment of fees and 

to amend are GRANTED. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 'lhe mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3290 Document: 010110031055 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 2