UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Technical Sergeant VINCENT L. WILLIAMS,

United States Air Force

v.

UNITED STATES

Misc. Dkt. No. 2015-01

4 April 2016

Sentence adjudged 23 January 2007 by GCM convened at Fort George G. 

Meade, Maryland. Military Judge: Gary M. Jackson.

Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 15 years, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and MAYBERRY

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

MITCHELL, Senior Judge:

The pro-se Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude we 

do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the petition.

Background

Consistent with his pleas, Petitioner was convicted of diverse occasions of carnal 

knowledge and committing indecent acts on a child who was at least twelve and under 

sixteen years of age, in violation of Articles 120 and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 934. 

The general court-martial composed of officer members sentenced Petitioner to a 

dishonorable discharge, 18 years and 4 months of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and 

allowances, and reduction to E-1. The convening authority reduced the period of 

confinement to 15 years, in accordance with the terms of a pretrial agreement, but

otherwise approved the adjudged sentence.
2 Misc. Dkt. No. 2015-01

On appeal, this court affirmed the approved findings and sentence. United States 

v. Williams, ACM 36996 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 15 July 2009) (unpub. op.). Review was 

denied by our superior court on 24 June 2010. United States v. Williams, 69 M.J. 190 

(C.A.A.F. 2010) (mem.). With review complete under Article 71(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 

871(c), and the sentence affirmed, the convening authority promulgated General CourtMartial Order Number 96 and ordered Petitioner’s dishonorable discharge to be executed 

on 19 July 2010. Petitioner’s case is final under Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876.

In 2011, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus with this court. United States v. 

Williams, Misc. Dkt No. 2011-05 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 26 October 2011) (unpub. op.). 

At that time, we decided we had jurisdiction over the writ. Id. at 2. We determined that 

the writ petition was a rehash of issues raised unsuccessfully on direct appeal and denied 

it on its merits. Id. at 3.

Petitioner asserts that he was granted parole on 20 February 2015.

Discussion

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), grants this court authority to issue 

extraordinary writs in aid of its jurisdiction. Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235, 246 

(C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534 (1999)). However, the 

Act does not enlarge our jurisdiction, and the writ must be in aid of our existing statutory 

jurisdiction. Clinton, 526 U.S. at 534–35. “The courts of criminal appeals are courts of 

limited jurisdiction, defined entirely by statute.” United States v. Arness, 74 M.J. 441, 

442 (C.A.A.F. 2015). Therefore, the preliminary question is whether this court has 

jurisdiction to consider a writ petition from a petitioner whose court-martial conviction is 

final but is continuing to serve his term of confinement in a parole status. We conclude 

we do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the petition.

A writ of habeas corpus is “the traditional remedy for unlawful imprisonment.” 

Waller v. Swift, 30 M.J. 139, 142 (C.M.A. 1990). A person who is on parole is “in 

custody” for the purpose of habeas corpus jurisdiction. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 

236, 243 (1963). 

We recently determined that we “do not have jurisdiction over habeas corpus 

petitions when a court-martial has completed direct review under Article 71, UCMJ, and 

is final under Article 76, UCMJ.” Chapman v. United States, 75 M.J. 598 (A.F. Ct. Crim. 

App. 18 February 2016). Although a habeas petition is available for parolees, 

Petitioner’s writ is outside the military court’s limited jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss 

the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice for Petitioner to file a writ of 

error coram nobis with this court.
3 Misc. Dkt. No. 2015-01

Although Petitioner may later file a writ of coram nobis, to be entitled to the writ 

he must meet the following 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 v. United States, 66 M.J. 114, 126 (C.A.A.F. 2008), aff’d and remanded, 556 

U.S. 904 (2009).

This court uses a two-tier approach to evaluate claims raised via a writ of coram 

nobis. First, the petitioner must meet the aforementioned threshold requirements for a 

writ of coram nobis. Id. If the petitioner meets the threshold requirements, his claims are 

then evaluated under the standards applicable to his issues. Id.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus is outside this court’s limited jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 4th day of April, 2016,

ORDERED:

That the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus is 

hereby DISMISSED.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court