Ehlers continues. In Ehlers v. United States, NMCCA 20080019 (N. M. Ct. Crim. App. 27 Dec 2011)(unpublished op.). The petition was filed pro se. Under CAAF rules he has 20 days from the date of service on him to submit a writ appeal petition to CAAF. See CAAF Rule 27(b).
The NMCCA summarizes the history of the case as follows.
In June 2009, this court affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Ehlers, No. 200800190, 2009 CCA LEXIS 229, unpublished op. (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 30 Jun 2009). In April 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the petitioner’s petition for grant of review. United States v. Ehlers, 69 M.J. 89 (C.A.A.F. 2010). The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari. Ehlers v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 536 (2010). Direct appellate review is complete.
The petitioner now seeks extraordinary relief from this court in the form of a writ of habeas corpus[.]
NMCCA denied the present writ.
On his first appeal Petitioner asserted:
The appellant alleges five assignments of error: (1) that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the findings of guilty to sodomy and indecent liberties with a child; (2) that the appellant “was
prejudiced before and during the trial by the military’s misconduct” in the form of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and unlawful command influence; (3) that the offenses alleged constitute an unreasonable multiplication of charges; (4) that the sodomy, assault, and indecent liberties charges are multiplicious; and (5) that the appellant’s adjudged sentence of confinement for 25 years is “unduly disproportionate.”
The family blog indicates that:In April, Edwin filed for Habeas Corpus in the Federal District Court of Southern California. (And also this rather provocative post, “Today is the last day the Government has to respond to my 40 million dollar lawsuit for Edwin’s wrongful conviction.”)
To go back to the current case — The petitioner now seeks extraordinary relief from this court in the form of a writ of habeas corpus claiming:
(1) the charges and specifications under Article 134 failed to state an offense in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011); (2) the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were violated by the delay between the first allegations of misconduct and the trial; (3) the military judge abused his authority by failing to dismiss the charges because the petitioner’s right against self-incrimination was violated by a special agent interrogating the petitioner; (4) the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence at trial; (5) the military judge’s findings were ambiguous; (6) the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service (NCIS) failed to follow established directives by failing to report the allegations at issue to the Family Advocacy Program (FAP); and (7) an NCIS special agent tampered with evidence.
See prior CAAFLog posting here; in particular Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan’s post that there was no SCOTUS jurisdiction over the cert petition, and the rather interesting comments to the post. There has been an ethics concern over the years about lawyers ghostwriting pro se petitions and filings. See e.g., this ABA Journal item. Some jurisdictions seem to require a note that an attorney assisted prepare the brief. See e.g., this ABA Journal item.
Here is a link to “Military Injustice” about this case. A post dated 19 September 2011 indicates that White light Productions has agreed to do a story on Edwin and his wrongful conviction by the Marine Corps. Filming will begin in October. According to the blog, “The trailer for Edwin’s story is at: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-676027.”