U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
In re Robert A. CONDON ) Misc. Dkt. No. 2022-04
Staff Sergeant (E-6) )
U.S. Air Force )
Petitioner )
) ORDER
)
)
)
) Special Panel
This order resolves Petitioner’s 9 May 2022 request for extraordinary relief
in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus under the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C.
§ 1651. Petitioner, through civilian counsel, asks this court to issue a writ of
habeas corpus, and order his immediate release from confinement. Specifically,
Petitioner cites inadequate direct review of his case on appeal, and requests
we review the following: (1) whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred in the
handling of the transcript on appeal; (2) whether Petitioner’s appellate defense
counsel was ineffective; (3) whether there was a Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S.
83 (1963), violation through the failure to disclose the key witness’s prior crim-
inal conviction; (4) whether the trial judge erred by assigning himself as the
judge for the Petitioner’s court-martial; and (5) whether the trial judge engaged
in “improper command influence.”
Petitioner’s case completed direct review on 1 October 2018 when the Su-
preme Court of the United States denied his petition for certiorari. Condon v.
United States,
139 S. Ct. 110 (2018); see Article 71(c)(1)(C)(ii), Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. § 871(c)(1)(C)(ii). On 26 April 2019, Peti-
tioner’s case became final when the convening authority ordered the dishonor-
able discharge executed, having already ordered the other portions of Peti-
tioner’s sentence executed. See Article 76, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 876.*
This court does not have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions when
there is a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings, all portions of
the sentence have been ordered executed, and the case is final under Articles
71(c)(1)(C)(ii) and 76, UCMJ. Chapman v. United States,
75 M.J. 598, 600–01
* The substantive law on finality did not change in Appellant’s case during the course
of his appeal. See Articles 71(c)(1)(C)(ii) and 76, UCMJ (Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (2012 ed.)), and Articles 71(c)(1)(C)(ii) and 76, UCMJ (Manual for Court-
Martial, United States (2016 ed.)).
In re Condon, Misc. Dkt. No. 2022-04
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (citations omitted). As this court addressed in Chap-
man, habeas corpus petitions are “considered a separate civil case and record.”
Id. at 601 (citation omitted). “Furthermore, the [United States] Supreme Court
has stated that the federal district courts have jurisdiction over habeas corpus
petitioners who are imprisoned as a result of court-martial convictions. . . . ‘By
statute, Congress has charged them with the exercise of that power.’”
Id. (cit-
ing Burns v. Wilson,
346 U.S. 137, 139 (1953)). Consequently, this court lacks
jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s request for extraordinary relief in the nature
of a writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, it is by the court on this 21st day of June, 2022,
ORDERED:
The Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Habeas
Corpus is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
2
