Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03129/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger J. Lundy
Appellant
Gordon N. Zelez
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

tklired Srates Courr of Appea-ls 

T ench Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ._: :) l 11 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROGER J. LUNDY, ) 

} 

Petitioner-Appellant, } 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GORDON N. ZELEZ, Commandant, U.S.D.B., ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

. No. 89-3129 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 88-3020-0} 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Roger J. Lundy, pro se. 

Benjamin L. Burgess, Jr., United States Attorney, and David M. 

Cooper, Assistant United States Attorney, Topeka, Kansas, for 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

Appellate Case: 89-3129 Document: 01019435404 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner is granted leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees. Both sides have fully briefed the 

issues. Therefore, we may decide this case on the merits. 

In 1985, petitioner was convicted of intent to commit rape by 

a general court martial. 1 He was sentenced to nine years 

imprisonment, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction in 

grade to the lowest enlisted rank, and a dishonorable discharge. 

Petitioner appealed to the United States Army Court of 

Military Review {ACMR) raising the issues of ineffective 

assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence. The court 

affirmed. Petitioner then appealed to the United States Court of 

Military Appeals (CMA) on the ground that his conviction was 

constitutionally defective because there was insufficient evidence 

regarding his intent to commit rape. The court denied review. 

Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial with the Judge Advocate 

General on the ground that he was denied due process and a fraud 

was committed on the court due to the fact that the complaining 

witness and her interpreter, both German nationals, were not 

subject to the law of perjury when testifying under oath. The 

Judge Advocate General denied the petition. 

l Petitioner pled guilty to charges of operating a motor 

vehicle without a license, leaving the scene of an accident, 

wrongful use of marijuana, false swearing, and breaking 

restriction. He has not appealed any issues concerning this plea. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3129 Document: 01019435404 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 2 
Petitioner then commenced this habeas corpus action in 

federal district court in which he alleged he had been denied due 

process because the penalty of perjury did not attach to the 

complaining witness' testimony. Respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds 

that petitioner's claim had been given full and fair consideration 

by the military courts, the claim was not substantially free of 

factual questions, and there was no showing the military courts 

failed to apply proper legal standards. The court denied 

petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Initially, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to 

hear this appea1. 2 Petitioner must exhaust his military remedies 

before filing a civil habeas petition. Gusik v. Schilder, 340 

u.s. 128, 131-32 (1950); Noyd v. Bond, 395 u.s. 683, 693 (1969). 

Respondent argues that petitioner waived review because he did not 

raise this issue to either the ACMR or the CMA. However, he did I 

raise it in his petition for a new trial. See 10 U.S.C. § 873. 

An issue alleged to be either newly discovered evidence or a fraud 

on the court and not otherwise raised must be presented to the 

Judge Advocate General in a petition for a new trial in order to 

exhaust. See Gusik, 340 u.s. at 131-33. 

Even though petitioner has exhausted his military remedies, 

the scope of matters available for review in military habeas 

corpus petitions is more limited than in civil cases. Burns v. 

2 On appeal, petitioner raises for the first time the fact that 

the ACMR opinion was issued by only two judges, not three as 

required by statute. See 10 U.S.C. S 866(a). We do not address 

this issue. See discussion infra. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3129 Document: 01019435404 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 3 
Wilson, 346 u.s. 137, 139 (1953). Federal civil courts have 

jurisdiction only over military habeas petitions which allege that 

petitioners have been imprisoned "as a result of proceedings which 

denied them basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution." Id. We 

then review this issue only to determine "whether the military 

have given fair consideration" to petitioner's claim. Id. at 144. 

If such consideration has been given, we may only review the issue 

if it is both "'substantial and largely free of factual 

questions.'" Monk v. Zelez, 901 F.2d 885, 888 (lOth Cir. 

l990)(quoting Mendrano v. Smith, 797 F.2d 1538, 1542 n.6 (lOth 

Cir. 1986)). 

Petitioner ·does not meet this standard. He argues only that 

this standard of review is "incorrect." He does not allege that 

the Judge Advocate General failed to give fair consideration to 

his issue. Further, even if the complaining witness and her 

interpreter were not subject to the law of perjury, petitioner has 

not alleged that they co~nitted perjury or that he was, therefore, 

prejudiced in any way. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3129 Document: 01019435404 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 4