Here’s a link.  CAAF denies relief in an opinion by Judge Erdmann, joined by Chief Judge Effron and Judge Baker.  While joining the majority opinion, Chief Judge Effron provides a brief concurring opinion noting his adherence to the views he expressed in Loving v. Hart, 47 M.J. 438, 454-60 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (Effron, J., concurring in part/dissenting in part).  Judge Stucky and Judge Ryan each provided separate opinions.  All five judges agreed that PVT Loving isn’t entitled to relief.  The majority assumes without deciding that the trial defense counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable, then denies relief due to lack of prejudice.  Judge Stucky concludes that PVT Loving’s trial defense counsel’s performance wasn’t objectively unreasonable.  Judge Ryan concludes that CAAF doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain Loving’s habeas petition.

7 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: CAAF denies Loving’s habeas petition”

  1. D Sullivan says:

    Are anonymous comments allowed?

  2. anonymous says:

    Oops. I was trying to send an email to D. Sullivan to see if anonymous comments were still allowed. I was not trying to impersonate him. Sorry for the confusion.

  3. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Anone 1410, I think you answered your own question. :-)

  4. Anonymous says:

    Ryan at n.4 is incorrect. The Supreme Court did not say coram nobis relief may only issue in the absence of any other remedy.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The majority more or less “proved” the IAC – there is no such street in Rochester if you search Google or MapQuest named “Oakbend Stree!” How can you investigate the “bad neighborhood” of your client if you don’t even have the correct address??

  6. Anonymous says:

    “To confine the use of coram nobis so that finality is not at risk in a great number of cases, we were careful in Morgan to limit the availability of the writ to ‘extraordinary’ cases presenting circumstances compelling its use ‘to achieve justice.’ 346 U.S., at 511, 74 S.Ct. 247. Another limit, of course, is that an extraordinary remedy may not issue when alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available.”

    U.S. v. Denedo 129 S.Ct. 2213, 2220 (U.S.,2009)

  7. Anonymous says:

    so the real question is, does Loving lose his habeas corpus rights in Federal Court? What if J. Ryan is right and CAAF never should have heard the case in the first place, does that mean that Loving can argue that this was for all intents and purposes a practice run?