U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
In re David H. JUILLERAT ) Misc. Dkt. No. 2020-01
Captain (O-3) )
U.S. Air Force )
Petitioner )
) ORDER
)
)
)
) Panel 3
In May 2000, a military judge found the Petitioner guilty, in accordance
with his pleas pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), of six specifications of
making false official statements, one specification of conduct unbecoming an
officer, five specifications of wrongfully possessing and/or using false identifi-
cation documents with the intent to deceive, and one specification of bigamy,
in violation of Articles 107, 133, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 933, 934. * A general court-martial composed of of-
ficer members sentenced Petitioner to a dismissal, confinement for three years,
and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. In accordance with the PTA, the con-
vening authority reduced Petitioner’s term of confinement to 22 months and
approved the other elements of the sentence.
On 16 October 2002, this court affirmed the findings and sentence of Peti-
tioner’s court-martial and denied a petition for new trial, United States v. Juil-
lerat, No. ACM 34205,
2002 CCA LEXIS 438 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Oct. 2002)
(per curiam) (unpub. op.), and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces (CAAF) denied review on 30 June 2003. United States v. Juille-
rat,
59 M.J. 32 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (mem.). Petitioner subsequently filed several
extraordinary writ petitions with this court and with the CAAF, each of which
was denied. See, e.g., Juillerat v. United States,
75 M.J. 344 (C.A.A.F. 2016)
(mem.); United States v. Juillerat,
75 M.J. 319 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (mem.); Juille-
rat v. United States, Misc. Dkt. No. 2016–06,
2016 CCA LEXIS 211 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App.
31 Mar. 2016) (unpub. op.); Juillerat v. United States, Misc. Dkt.
No. 2016–03,
2016 CCA LEXIS 109 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 22 Feb. 2016) (unpub.
op.).
* References to the punitive articles of the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (1998 ed.). All other references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
In re Juillerat, Misc. Dkt. No. 2020-01
On 1 April 2020, Petitioner filed pro se with this court the instant petition,
entitled “Motion for Habeas Corpus and Coram Nobis.” Petitioner alleges nu-
merous errors and irregularities on the part of criminal investigators and other
government personnel before, during, and after his general court-martial. Pe-
titioner requests, inter alia, that this court dismiss the charges, direct that he
receive back pay, and direct that a “valid” Department of Defense Form 214
(DD 214), Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be delivered to
him. In addition, Petitioner requests that this court “find that [he] was the
victim of forced marriage and illegal discrimination and provide all relief it is
authorized to provide;” that “all determinations of fact contrary to Petitioner’s
belief of the record be decided by a jury to whom he can defend his beliefs with-
out coercion by medication or otherwise;” and that “this honorable court deter-
mine that Petitioner is eligible for benefits from the Veteran’s Administration.”
We deny the petition.
“The All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), grants this court authority to is-
sue extraordinary writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction.”
Chapman v. United States,
75 M.J. 598, 600 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (citing
Loving v. United States,
62 M.J. 235, 246 (C.A.A.F. 2005)). “However, the Act
does not enlarge our jurisdiction, and the writ must be in aid of our existing
statutory jurisdiction.”
Id. (citing Clinton v. Goldsmith,
526 U.S. 529, 534–35
(1999)). “The courts of criminal appeals are courts of limited jurisdiction, de-
fined entirely by statute.” United States v. Arness,
74 M.J. 441, 442 (C.A.A.F.
2015) (citation omitted); see
10 U.S.C. § 866.
To the extent Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, this court does not
have jurisdiction over habeas petitions where direct appellate review is com-
plete and the case is final under Article 76, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 876. See Chap-
man,
75 M.J. at 600. Direct appellate review was completed and Petitioner’s
court-martial result became final many years ago after the Secretary of the Air
Force ordered the dismissal executed on 27 August 2003. Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction to grant habeas relief.
This court does have jurisdiction over petitions for a writ of coram nobis
alleging an earlier judgment of conviction previously reviewed by this court
was flawed in some fundamental respect.
Id. at 601 (citing United States v.
Denedo,
556 U.S. 904, 917 (2009)). However, a petitioner for a writ of coram
nobis has the burden to show a clear and indisputable right to the extraordi-
nary relief requested. Denedo v. United States,
66 M.J. 114, 126 (C.A.A.F. 2008)
(citing Cheney v. United States Dist. Court,
542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004)), aff’d and
remanded,
556 U.S. 904 (2009). “Although a petitioner may file a writ of coram
nobis at any time, to be entitled to the writ he must meet the following thresh-
old requirements:”
2
In re Juillerat, Misc. Dkt. No. 2020-01
(1) the alleged error is of the most fundamental character; (2) no
remedy other than coram nobis is available to rectify the conse-
quences 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 dil-
igence 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.
Chapman,
75 M.J. at 601 (quoting Denedo, 66 M.J. at 126). “This court uses a
two-tier approach to evaluate claims raised via a writ of coram nobis.” Id.
“First, the petitioner must meet the aforementioned threshold requirements
for a writ of coram nobis. If the petitioner meets the threshold requirements,
his claims are then evaluated under the standards applicable to his issues.” Id.
(citing Denedo, 66 M.J. at 126).
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the
requested relief. The errors Petitioner alleges in his petition and its several
attachments are wide-ranging and multifaceted, but can be divided into sev-
eral general categories: (1) challenges to his guilt of one or more of the offenses
for which he was convicted; (2) whether he was fraudulently inducted into the
Air Force; (3) whether criminal investigators unlawfully discriminated against
him; (4) whether the Prosecution or Air Force generally engaged in discovery
violations or unlawfully interfered with his ability to obtain documents; (5)
whether the Government has a duty to him as an alleged crime victim; (6)
whether he remains in unlawful government “custody” until he receives a
“valid” DD 214; and (7) whether he is entitled to benefits from the Veteran’s
Administration. Although numerous, Petitioner’s claims do not warrant ex-
tended explanation or analysis, as they all fail to meet the threshold require-
ments for issuance of a writ of coram nobis.
As an initial matter, we note that the military judge found Petitioner prov-
idently pleaded guilty to all 13 specifications of which he was convicted. Cf.
United States v. Bradley,
68 M.J. 279, 281 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (citations omitted)
(“An unconditional plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defects at earlier
stages of the proceedings.”). Petitioner did so pursuant to a PTA which directly
benefited him by limiting his exposure to the maximum imposable term of 47
years of confinement and reducing the adjudged three-year term of confine-
ment to 22 months. We have reviewed the transcript of the military judge’s
colloquy with Petitioner exploring the providency of his pleas, as well as the
stipulation of fact Petitioner signed pursuant to the PTA. In both the guilty
plea inquiry and the stipulation, Petitioner made numerous admissions which
3
In re Juillerat, Misc. Dkt. No. 2020-01
clearly acknowledged his guilt and which contradict many of the assertions he
now makes in the instant petition.
With respect to the specific threshold requirements for coram nobis relief,
several of Petitioner’s claims are not directly related to the validity of his court-
martial conviction and are manifestly not of “the most fundamental character.”
Chapman,
75 M.J. at 601. With respect to those that are so related to his con-
viction, Petitioner either: (1) essentially reiterates claims he has previously
raised in the nine issues he raised to this court on direct appeal pursuant to
United States v. Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), in his petition for new
trial filed in 2002, or in his prior petitions for extraordinary relief; or (2) fails
to provide valid reasons why he did not seek relief earlier for the alleged im-
proprieties. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Petitioner could satisfy the
threshold requirements, we find he has failed to clearly and indisputably
demonstrate that his substantive claims would warrant setting aside the find-
ings and sentence imposed pursuant to his unconditional guilty plea.
Accordingly, it is by the court on this 25th day of June, 2021,
ORDERED:
The petition for extraordinary relief entitled “Motion for Habeas Corpus
and Coram Nobis” received by this court on 1 April 2020 is hereby DENIED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
4
