UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

 

UNITED STATES, ) Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-30

Respondent )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) )

MARK K. ARNESS, )

USAF, )

 Petitioner ) Panel No. 2

 

WEBER, Judge:

The petitioner requested extraordinary relief on 19 December 2013 in the nature of 

a writ of error coram nobis. The petitioner asks this Court to grant relief based on 

13 alleged errors or issues regarding his 2009 court-martial.

Background

The petitioner was convicted at a general court-martial in November 2009 of 

14 specifications of leaving his place of duty or absence from his unit, 10 specifications 

of false official statements, and 2 specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a 

gentleman, in violation of Articles 86, 107, and 133, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 907, 933. 

The military judge sentenced the petitioner to confinement for 11 months and a 

reprimand, and the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

Review by the Office of The Judge Advocate General under Article 69, UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. § 869, determined the findings and sentence were supported in law. The 

petitioner then asked The Judge Advocate General to reconsider this decision, alleging 

three errors were committed in his court-martial that warranted relief. This request for 

reconsideration was denied on 15 September 2011, on the basis that the petitioner’s 

conviction was final under Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876. The petitioner now seeks 

a writ of error coram nobis from this Court, citing 13 alleged errors or other 

considerations arising from his conviction.

Law

“Courts-martial . . . are subject to collateral review within the military justice 

system.” Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114, 119 (C.A.A.F. 2008), aff’d and 

remanded, 556 U.S. 904 (2009). This Court is among the courts authorized under the All 
2 Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-30

Writs Act to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 

jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364, 367 (C.A.A.F. 

2013).

A petition for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act requires this Court to 

make two determinations: (1) whether the requested writ is “in aid of” this Court’s 

existing jurisdiction; and (2) whether the requested writ is “necessary or appropriate.” 

LRM, 72 M.J. at 367-68. Concerning the first determination, “the express terms of the 

[All Writs] Act confine [our] power to issuing process ‘in aid of’ [our] existing statutory 

jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction.” Clinton v. Goldsmith, 

526 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1999) (citations omitted). Therefore, the All Writs Act is not an 

independent grant of appellate jurisdiction and it cannot enlarge a court’s jurisdiction. Id. 

Likewise, the Act does not grant this Court authority “to oversee all matters arguably 

related to military justice, or to act as a plenary administrator even of criminal judgments 

it has affirmed.” Id. at 536. Nevertheless:

[W]hen a petitioner seeks collateral relief to modify an action that was 

taken within the subject matter jurisdiction of the military justice system, 

such as the findings or sentence of a court-martial, a writ that is necessary 

or appropriate may be issued under the All Writs Act ‘in aid of’ the court’s 

existing jurisdiction.

Denedo, 66 M.J. at 120. 

Concerning the second determination, a writ is not “necessary or appropriate” if 

another adequate legal remedy is available. See Goldsmith, 526 U.S. at 537 (holding that 

even if the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces had some jurisdictional basis to issue a 

writ of mandamus, such writ was unjustified as necessary or appropriate in light of 

alternative remedies available to a servicemember demanding to be kept on the rolls). 

See also Denedo, 66 M.J. at 121 (citing Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235, 253-54 

(C.A.A.F. 2005)).

A writ of error coram nobis may be utilized to “remedy an earlier disposition of a 

case that is flawed because the court misperceived or improperly assessed a material 

fact.” McPhail v. United States, 1 M.J. 457, 459 (C.M.A. 1976). Coram nobis 

encompasses constitutional and other fundamental errors, including the denial of 

fundamental rights accorded by the UCMJ. Garrett v. Lowe, 39 M.J. 293, 295 (C.M.A. 

1994); United States v. Bevilacqua, 39 C.M.R. 10, 11-12 (C.M.A. 1968). This writ 

authority extends past the point at which a court-martial conviction becomes final under 

Article 76, UCMJ. Denedo, 66 M.J. at 121-25. However, coram nobis “should only be 

used to remedy errors of the most fundamental character.” Loving, 62 M.J. at 252-53 

(quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954)) (internal quotation marks 
3 Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-30

omitted). In order to obtain a writ of error coram nobis, a petitioner must meet the 

following “stringent threshold requirements”:

(1) the alleged error is of the most fundamental character; (2) no remedy 

other than coram nobis is available to rectify the consequences of the error;

(3) valid reasons exist for not seeking relief earlier; (4) the new information 

presented in the petition could not have been discovered through the 

exercise of reasonable diligence prior to the original judgment; (5) the writ 

does not seek to reevaluate previously considered evidence or legal issues; 

and (6) the sentence has been served, but the consequences of the erroneous 

conviction persist.

Denedo, 66 M.J. at 126. If the petitioner meets these threshold requirements for a writ of 

error coram nobis, this Court analyzes the underlying basis for the writ, keeping in mind 

“the petitioner must establish a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief.” Id.

(citing Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004)). 

Discussion

We find the requested writ is “in aid of” our existing jurisdiction. The petitioner’s 

sentence at his court-martial did not entitle him to review by this Court under Article 66, 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866. Instead, The Judge Advocate General reviewed his conviction 

under Article 69(a), UCMJ. Under Article 69(d)(1), UCMJ, The Judge Advocate General 

could have referred the case to this Court for review. In addition, Article 69(d)(2), 

UCMJ, authorizes this Court to review “any action taken by the Judge Advocate General 

under this section” in a court-martial. An application for a writ of error coram nobis is 

“properly viewed as a belated extension of the original proceeding during which the error 

occurred.” Denedo, 556 U.S. at 913. Since we could have properly reviewed the original 

proceeding under Article 69, UCMJ, we adopt the position of our fellow service court 

that a court of criminal appeals retains authority to issue extraordinary writs in cases 

reviewed under Article 69, UCMJ. See Dew v. United States, 48 M.J. 639 

(Army Ct. Crim. App. 1998). We also find that the requested writ is “necessary or 

appropriate,” as there are no adequate alternative remedies available to the petitioner. 

Having concluded that we may review the petition, we hold that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief. We have fully analyzed the petitioner’s 13 bases for the requested 

relief. In several instances, the petitioner seeks to reevaluate previously considered legal 

issues. For example, issues such as trial counsel’s alleged exposure to privileged sanity 

board information, an alleged speedy trial violation in bringing the petitioner’s case to 

trial, and a multiplicity issue were all the subject of motion practice at trial. Other issues 

the petitioner raises do not rise to the level of being “of the most fundamental character,” 

such as his contention that trial counsel made disparaging comments about him during 

the court-martial or his commander’s comments in the first indorsement to the charge 
4 Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-30

sheet. The petitioner also argues his conviction was factually insufficient and his 

sentence was inappropriately severe. As this is not a review under Article 66, UCMJ, we 

lack authority to make factual sufficiency and sentence appropriateness determinations. 

We see no legal error in the Office of The Judge Advocate General’s finding that the 

petitioner’s conviction is supported in law.

As to the remaining issues, the petitioner provides no meritorious grounds for 

relief. We find it appropriate to comment on four of the petitioner’s claims, allegations 

of the most fundamental character that were not litigated at trial: (1) The military judge 

admitted Prosecution Exhibits 3 and 7 despite an alleged Fourth or Fifth Amendment1

violation in procuring these documents; (2) The petitioner received ineffective assistance 

of counsel; (3) The military judge abandoned his role as an impartial and neutral arbiter 

in questioning a defense witness; and (4) The petitioner’s due process rights were 

violated when it took 153 days from the date the court-martial concluded for him to 

receive the convening authority’s action. 

1. Prosecution Exhibits 3 and 7

Prosecution Exhibit 3 consists of airline records demonstrating the petitioner’s 

travel. The Government used these records at trial to demonstrate the petitioner travelled 

cross-country during periods when he was not authorized leave. Prosecution Exhibit 7 

consists of an invoice and receipt for repair work on the petitioner’s automobile. The 

Government used this evidence to demonstrate the petitioner falsely told his supervisor 

he was having repair work done on his car on a different date than that reflected on the 

invoice and receipt. The petitioner claims the Government obtained these documents 

through an illegal search and seizure and/or improper subpoenas. Trial defense counsel 

did not object to the admission of either exhibit, and the petitioner does not claim his trial 

defense counsel were ineffective in failing to so object. We also see nothing in the record 

of trial that would provide any basis to believe the documents were improperly obtained. 

2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel in two respects: 

(1) His counsel failed to object to the introduction of two sentencing exhibits he states 

were either too old to be properly introduced or represented evidence of uncharged 

misconduct; and (2) His counsel improperly withdrew a motion to obtain sentencing 

credit for illegal pretrial punishment. The sentencing exhibits of which the petitioner 

complains are a record of nonjudicial punishment proceedings from May 2005 and a 

memorandum for record indicating that, in 2001, the petitioner’s commander relieved 

him of duties as flight commander. Trial defense counsel did not object to the 

introduction of these exhibits. Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(b)(2) allows the 

 

1 U.S. CONST. amends. IV, V. The petitioner uses these two constitutional amendments interchangeably. 
5 Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-30

Government to introduce nonjudicial punishment records from the accused’s service 

record with no distinction as to the date such action was issued. Air Force practice limits 

the permissible age of nonjudicial punishment action introduced under 

R.C.M. 1001(b)(2) to five years prior to the date charges were referred. United States v. 

Edwards, 39 M.J. 528, 529 (A.F.C.M.R. 1994); Air Force Instruction 51-201, 

Administration of Military Justice, ¶ 8.13.1.2.2 (21 December 2007). The petitioner’s 

nonjudicial punishment record was within this five-year window, and therefore there was 

no basis to object to its admission. As for the 2001 memorandum indicating the 

petitioner was relieved from command, even assuming trial defense counsel was deficient 

in failing to object to it, we see no reasonable probability that but for the deficient 

performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94 (1984). Finally, concerning the motion for illegal 

pretrial punishment, no explanation appears in the record why trial defense counsel 

withdrew the motion. However, our review of the motion convinces us the motion would 

not offer the petitioner relief; therefore, there is no prejudice to the petitioner in trial 

defense counsel’s withdrawal of the motion.

 

3. Military Judge’s Questioning of a Witness

The petitioner alleges the military judge improperly questioned two witnesses, 

assuming the role of trial counsel rather than a neutral participant. We have examined the 

military judge’s conduct throughout the court-martial, including the two instances the 

petitioner cites. We see no evidence of improper conduct or any behavior that departs 

from the “wide latitude” a military judge is provided to ask questions of witnesses called 

by the parties. United States v. Acosta, 49 M.J. 14, 17 (C.A.A.F. 1998). 

4. Time from Sentence to Action

The petitioner’s sentence was adjudged on 18 November 2009. The convening 

authority took action on 19 February 2010, 93 days later. The petitioner claims he did 

not receive the action until 19 April 2010, but he offers no evidence to support this 

contention.2 Our superior court established a presumption of unreasonable delay where 

the action of the convening authority is not taken within 120 days of the completion of 

trial. United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). If this standard is 

violated, this Court then examines the remaining due process considerations of Barker v. 

Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), including whether the petitioner suffered prejudice as a 

result of the delay. We find no due process violation in the time taken for the convening 

authority to take action in this case. The convening authority acted 93 days after sentence 

was announced, well within the Moreno standard. Even assuming a delay in an accused 

 

2 His contention appears improbable, as the Office of The Judge Advocate General found the conviction legally 

supported on 25 March 2010, weeks before the petitioner claims he received the convening authority’s action. The 

record of trial also contains a 1 April 2010 petition for humanitarian release and clemency signed by the petitioner, a 

petition he would normally only file after receiving the action. 
6 Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-30

receiving action may constitute a due process violation—something Moreno did not 

hold—there is no reason to believe the petitioner was prejudiced by the delay in receiving 

action, particularly where such delay did not hold up the Article 69, UCMJ, review of his 

case. The petitioner is entitled to no relief on this issue.

Conclusion

An extraordinary writ is a drastic remedy that should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. United States v. LaBella, 15 M.J. 228, 229 (C.M.A. 1983). The petitioner 

has not carried his burden to demonstrate his case presents extraordinary circumstances 

warranting issuance of the writ of error coram nobis.

Accordingly, it is by the Court on this 11th day of March, 2014,

ORDERED:

The Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis 

is hereby DENIED.

HELGET, Senior Judge, and PELOQUIN, Judge, concur.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court