UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

James W. RICHARDS, IV ) Misc. Dkt. No. 2018–07

Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) )

U.S. Air Force )

Petitioner )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Heather WILSON )

Secretary of the Air Force )

)

Brian S. GREENROAD )

Colonel (O-6) )

Commander )

Air Force Security Forces Center )

)

D. L. HILTON )

Colonel (O-6) )

Commandant )

United States Disciplinary )

Barracks ) 

Respondents ) Special Panel 2

Petitioner’s court-martial has had a lengthy appellate history, and it is unnecessary to recount the details here. The following summary is sufficient for 

present purposes. On 21 February 2013, a general court-martial sentenced Petitioner to a dismissal, confinement for 17 years, and forfeiture of all pay and 

allowances. This court affirmed the findings and sentence of Petitioner’s courtmartial on 2 May 2016; the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (CAAF) affirmed our decision on 13 July 2017; and the United States 

Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari on 28 June 

2018. United States v. Richards, No. ACM 38346, 2016 CCA LEXIS 285 (A.F. 

Ct. Crim. App. 2 May 2016) (unpub. op.), aff’d, 76 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2017), 

cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018). On 4 June 2018, while Petitioner’s certiorari petition was pending, Petitioner docketed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus (Mandamus Petition) 

with this court. On 27 August 2018, after certiorari was denied but while the 

Mandamus Petition was pending, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered Petitioner’s dismissal executed.
Richards v. Wilson, et al., Misc. Dkt. No. 2018–07

2

Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Extraordinary Relief: Writ of Habeas Corpus (Habeas Petition) and several related motions pro se on 13 September 2018. On 17 September 2018, the Government moved to dismiss the 

Habeas Petition for lack of jurisdiction, and to dismiss Petitioner’s associated 

motions as moot. After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner—now represented by counsel—responded to the motion to dismiss on 14 October 2018. 

On 19 October 2018, this court denied the Mandamus Petition. Richards v. 

James, et al., Misc. Dkt. 2017–04, ____ CCA LEXIS ___ (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 19

Oct. 2018) (unpub. op.).

In the instant Habeas Petition, Petitioner relies on United States v. Boyce, 

76 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 2017), to contend that his court-martial and subsequent 

review by the convening authority were contaminated by unlawful command 

influence, and requests that we order his release from confinement. We agree 

with the Government that we lack jurisdiction.

In United States v. Chapman, 75 M.J. 598, 600 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016), 

we held that this court does not have jurisdiction over habeas petitions where 

direct appellate review is complete under Article 71, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 871, and the case is final under Article 76, UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. § 876. Direct appellate review of Petitioner’s court-martial was complete when the Supreme Court denied certiorari on 28 June 2018. See 10 U.S.C. 

§ 871(c)(1)(C)(ii). Petitioner’s court-martial result became final on 27 August 

2018 when the Secretary of the Air Force ordered the dismissal executed. See

10 U.S.C. § 876. Accordingly, under Chapman, we lack jurisdiction over the 

Habeas Petition. See also Sutton v. United States, 78 M.J. 537, 541 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. 2018) (relying on Chapman to hold this court also lacks jurisdiction 

over writs of prohibition or mandamus where a case is final under Article 76, 

UCMJ).

Petitioner virtually ignores the controlling decision in Chapman and instead relies on United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009), for the proposition 

that finality under Article 76, UCMJ, does not terminate the authority of a 

court of criminal appeals to issue extraordinary writs. However, Petitioner 

fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between the petition for a writ 

of coram nobis at issue in Denedo and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

that he now seeks. Unlike a habeas petition, a petition for writ of coram nobis

is “a belated extension of the original proceeding during which the error allegedly transpired,” and therefore our review of such a petition is a continuation 

of our original review on direct appeal under Article 66, UCMJ. Id. at 913–14; 

see also Chapman, 75 M.J. at 600–01 (distinguishing Denedo); but cf. United 

States v. Gray, 77 M.J. 5, 6 (C.A.A.F. 2017), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 138 S. Ct. 

2709 (2018) (holding the CAAF lacks jurisdiction over a petition for coram 

nobis where the case is final under Article 76, UCMJ). Unlike coram nobis, “a 
Richards v. Wilson, et al., Misc. Dkt. No. 2018–07

3

habeas corpus petition is not an extension of the direct appeal, and the rationale in Denedo does not apply to extend jurisdiction beyond the finality of 

Article 76, UCMJ.” Chapman, 75 M.J. at 601.

Petitioner further argues other circumstances in his case provide us with 

jurisdiction. He contends his direct review is in fact not final because his Mandamus Petition was still pending with this court when his dismissal was ordered executed, and therefore the execution order was unlawful. Relatedly, he 

contends that even if the execution order were otherwise lawful, the pending 

Mandamus Petition itself continues our jurisdiction over his case. We disagree. 

Under Article 71, UCMJ, a judgment as to the legality of the proceedings is 

final when “review is completed by a Court of Criminal Appeals”* and, inter 

alia, the CAAF has completed its review and the Supreme Court has denied 

certiorari. These criteria have been met with respect to Petitioner’s case, as 

summarized above. Accordingly, the judgment on the legality of the proceedings was final as of 28 June 2018 and Petitioner’s sentence to dismissal was 

ripe to be “carried into execution” when the Secretary ordered it executed on 

27 August 2018. See 10 U.S.C. § 876. We are not persuaded that a petitioner 

may indefinitely forestall finality of a judgment by continuing to submit petitions for extraordinary writs to a court of criminal appeals.

Finally, we note Petitioner contends that, due to circumstances beyond his 

control, he erroneously believed the instant Habeas Petition had been filed 

with this court on his behalf before 27 August 2018. However, Petitioner’s explanations for why the petition was not filed sooner cannot create jurisdiction 

where it does not exist.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 22nd day of October, 2018,

ORDERED:

Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss dated 17 September 2018 is GRANTED. 

Petitioner’s pending Motion for Leave to File, Motion to Compel Discovery, and 

Motion to Stay, all dated 13 September 2018, are DENIED AS MOOT.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court

 

* We find this language in Article 71, UCMJ, specifically refers to review under Article 

66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866, Review by Court of Criminal Appeals.