## Facts

- Rochester Thomas, an Army soldier, was convicted by general court-martial in absentia of sexual offenses after deserting in 1995 and received a 50-year confinement sentence.
- After later arrest in Germany for a separate violent incident, Thomas was convicted in a second court-martial and sentenced to 13 years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
- The first court-martial conviction received military appellate review; Thomas submitted additional claims (including mental-responsibility assertions) during that process, but no ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim was raised during the direct military review.
- In 2002, while confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks (Fort Leavenworth), Thomas filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and later supplemented it with ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims tied to the military appellate proceedings.
- The federal district court dismissed the petition, reasoning the ineffective-assistance claims had not been presented to the military courts and, alternatively, that Thomas failed to show prejudice.
- Thomas sought military collateral relief by filing a coram nobis petition in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; ACCA appointed counsel, the parties provided extensive briefing, and ACCA denied relief in a one-sentence order.
- On return to federal court, the district court again dismissed the § 2241 petition, concluding the military courts had given full and fair consideration to the ineffective-assistance claims.
- Thomas appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that ACCA’s summary denial could not constitute full and fair consideration sufficient to preclude federal review.

## Issues

1. Whether ACCA’s summary denial of Thomas’s coram nobis petition constituted “full and fair consideration” of his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims, thereby limiting further review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2. Whether a one-line military appellate disposition can satisfy the full-and-fair-consideration requirement when the record shows substantial briefing and representation by counsel.
3. Under the Tenth Circuit’s deferential framework for collateral review of court-martial convictions, how the “full and fair consideration” factor affects the scope of Article III review.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Thomas’s § 2241 petition.
- The court held that the military courts gave Thomas’s ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims full and fair consideration through the coram nobis proceeding.
- The court treated ACCA’s summary denial as resting on adequate legal grounds given the record and the presumption that courts apply the correct law.
- Because the claims were fully and fairly considered in the military system, the federal courts would not reach the merits of the ineffective-assistance allegations.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas review of court-martial convictions under § 2241 is highly limited; Article III courts generally do not reexamine claims that the military courts have fully and fairly considered.
- “Full and fair consideration” can be satisfied even without a detailed written opinion when the petitioner had a meaningful opportunity to present the claim and the military court had jurisdiction to decide it.
- A summary disposition by a military appellate court is presumed to reflect application of proper legal standards absent affirmative evidence to the contrary.
- Presentation of a constitutional claim to the military courts through a collateral vehicle (such as coram nobis) can be sufficient to exhaust the military system for purposes of determining whether federal review is foreclosed.
- When full and fair consideration is found, a federal court may dismiss without conducting a merits analysis (including a full Strickland inquiry).

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit concluded that ACCA’s counseled, fully briefed coram nobis proceeding—despite ending in a summary denial—constituted full and fair consideration of Thomas’s ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims, precluding further § 2241 review by the federal courts.


Thomas v. U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 625 F.3d 667 (10th Cir. 2010)