CAAF’s daily journal reflects the following from last Friday, October 7:

No. 17-0009/AF. Sebastian P. LaBella v. U.S. and U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram vobis or, in the alternative, writ-appeal petition for review of  the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis was filed this date.

Case Links (CAAFlog case page):
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF remands AFCAA case for consideration in light of Barberi
AFCCA opinion after remand
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Blog post: Argument preview
Blog post: The amicus brief of the Air Force Appellate Defense Division in LaBella (and the Government’s response)
• Oral argument audio
CAAF opinion
Blog post: Opinion analysis
AFCCA order denying petition for extraordinary relief
Blog post: The AFCCA denies relief for IAC in LaBella
Blog post: Did LaBella miss another deadline?
Blog post: LaBella missed the deadline… again!
Blog post: LaBella tries and tries again…

12 Responses to “LaBella tries and tries again…”

  1. Dew_Process says:

    Now there’s a Petition that needs to be read!  Hopefully CAAFlog can link it in soon!!!
    But, in all seriousness, for those who don’t do post-conviction review cases (after direct appeals), consider this:

    With origins buried deep in the annals of procedural history, there is a common law writ known as the writ of error coram nobis or coram vobis, which has aided many a client and lawyer in the hour of desperation.

    I think there might even be a consensus among the members of this esteemed blog readership, that LaBella is deep “in the hour of desperation!”  And, here is a LINK to the 1951 Article from where the above-quotation comes from. Ironically, the author – a 3L – was a West Point grad!

  2. Zachary D Spilman says:

    This would be LaBella’s second petition for a writ of error coram nobis / vobis. The first was denied by the AFCCA, and then he missed the deadline to appeal to CAAF.

  3. Tami a/k/a Princess Leia says:

    I think CAAF will not be sympathetic, considering the history of this case and precedent on this very same issue.

  4. Matt says:

    I just don’t see how anybody can argue that his counsel have not been grossly ineffective.  I hope that at a minimum they get referred to their respective state Bars to explain themselves.

  5. stewie says:

    This rigid application of rules basically leaves this client without recourse through zero fault of their own with clear IAC.
    Saying they can go to their bar is like saying if someone chops off your arm you can sue them for the cost of your shirt.

  6. Philip Cave says:

    I wonder — UNITED STATES v. FRYE, 8 U.S.C.M.A. 137 —- if there’s anything here.

  7. Vulture says:

    Close Stewie, very close.  But not withstanding Baker’s and Effron’s dissents in Rodriquez and Moss, this is all LaBella’s fault.  So it is more like he ripped his own eyes from the sockets in full Oedipus, and can get from the AF Appellate Division – eyewash.

  8. Zachary D Spilman says:

    For all those who think LaBella got royally screwed, take a look at the issues he wanted to raise to CAAF (analyzed in the CCA’s decision on the writ, available here). If there’s a case for paternalism from our civilian judges, this isn’t it.

  9. Dew_Process says:

    If my memory serves me right, LaBella at some point had the entire AF Appellate Defense office disqualified as being conflicted due to the deadline failures.  He was then detailed a new Appellate Defense Counsel, who while having previously been assigned to the AD office, was now stationed elsewhere.
    Whether that lawyer had any “writ” experience could be an issue, but we need to see what was filed at CAAF.
    But, if LaBella’s discharge had been executed when the writ deadlines were missed, perhaps Feres doesn’t bar FTCA relief . . . .

  10. Vulture says:

    OK Zach, I’ll relent.  It was to the civilian court aspect that Baker spoke to in Moss, and as long as the Supremes are bowing out, that civilian control of the military part needs to be sustained.

  11. stewie says:

    I don’t care what the issues are, he deserves competent counsel. If the issues suck, then they will be summarily disposed of.
    But perhaps he should change his name to Zombella since it keeps rising from the dead?

  12. DCGoneGalt says:

    stewie is right, even if the issues were a loser he should have been assigned a counsel that at least knew how to read a calendar.