Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01250/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01250-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Unit.ed Stat.ei Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JEFFREY L. HARDISON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

COLONEL GEORGE H. BRAXTON, 

United States Disciplinary Barracks, 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

FEB 2 3 1988 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER ~ Clerk 

} 

} No. 87-1250 

} (D.C. No. 85-3089} 

} ( D. Kan. } 

} 

} 

} 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

Di strict Court for 

desi gnation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assi st the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 1 0th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submi tted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner 

challenges his 1982 court-martial conviction for an unpremeditated 

Appellate Case: 87-1250 Document: 010110027550 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
' 

murder committed while he was stationed in the Philippines. 

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel by motion 

to this court. 

Ten grounds are asserted in the instant petition: 

(1) The military court lacked jurisdiction to try petitioner 

under Article XIII of the Military Bases Agreement of 1947 (MBA), 

61 Stat. 4109, TIAS 1775. 

(2) The military judge erred in admitting into evidence 

lineup photographs and fingerprints of petitioner. 

(3) The government did not prove petitioner's guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

(4) The staff judge advocate was disqualified from 

submitting a post-trial review because his pretrial advice was 

deficient and challenged as such at trial. 

(5) The military judge abused his discretion in denying 

petitioner's motion for a mistrial based upon an improper 

statement of a witness regarding a sentence that had been given a 

seaman for the murder of a Philippine national. 

(6) The military judge erred in overruling a defense 

objection to introduction of evidence regarding the presence of 

ants on the victim's body at the time of its discovery. 

(7) The military judge erred in denying a defense request 

for additional peremptory challenges. 

(9) Improper argument by trial counsel. 

(10) Severity of petitioner's sentence. 

Petitioner raised all ten of these grounds in his appeal to 

the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review (NMCMR), which 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1250 Document: 010110027550 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
✓ 

affirmed his conviction in a published opinion. See United States 

v. Hardison, 17 M.J. 701 (N.M.C.M.R. 1983). Inexplicably, 

petitioner omitted issues three, four, and ten from his petition 

for review before the Court of Military Appeals (CMA), which 

denied review of the remaining seven claims. 

The district court held that those matters raised before both 

the NMCMR and CMA had been fully and fairly litigated in the 

military courts and should be dismissed with prejudice 

accordingly. With the exception of the jurisdictional claim, we 

agree. When an issue has been briefed and argued before a 

military tribunal, it has been fairly considered, even though it 

may have been disposed of in summary fashion in the court's 

written opinion. Watson v. Mccotter, 782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 106 S. Ct. 2921 (1986); see also, King v. 

Moseley, 430 F.2d 732, 734-35 (10th Cir. 1970). Hence, further 

consideration of the nonjurisdictional claims rejected by the 

NMCMR and CMA would not be appropriate in light of the nature of 

those claims and the government's vigorous objection to such 

review. Mendrano v. Smith, 797 F.2d 1538, 1542 n.6 (10th Cir. 

1986) and cases cited therein. 

Furthermore, we believe all of the nonjurisdictional claims 

raised by petitioner should have been dismissed with prejudice. 

While those omitted from the CMA petition may not technically have 

been fully exhausted, dismissal without prejudice to permit 

exhaustion is inappropriate where, as here, the delay from final 

conviction would render further military review unavailable. See 

Kehrli v. Sprinkle, 524 F.2d 328, 334 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1250 Document: 010110027550 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3 
denied, 426 U.S. 947 (1976); see,~, Smith v. McNamara, 395 

F.2d 896, 897-900 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 934 

(1969). Since petitioner has advanced no reasons justifying his 

abandonment of the claims in question, habeas review is not 

merited and the claims should be dismissed outright. See Watson 

v. Mccotter, 782 F.2d at 145; Wolff v. United States, 737 F.2d 

877, 879-80 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1076 (1984). 

Turning to petitioner's claim that the court-martial lacked 

jurisdiction under Article XIII of the MBA, we note that it is the 

responsibility of the civil courts to ensure that the military 

courts act within their jurisdictional limits. Mendrano v. Smith, 

797 F.2d at 1542 n.6; Palomera v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 937, 938-39 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 (1965). Thus, the 

district court's peremptory decision to deny review of this claim 

cannot stand, and the matter must be remanded for further 

proceedings. 

Accordingly, the order of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas is (1) AFFIRMED with respect to the 

nonjurisdictional issues dismissed with prejudice, (2) VACATED 

with regard to the remaining nonjurisdictional grounds, which are 

REMANDED for dismissal with prejudice, and (3) VACATED as to the 

jurisdictional claim, which is REMANDED for further proceedings. 

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1250 Document: 010110027550 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 4