Facts
- Jacob Denedo, a lawful permanent resident and U.S. Navy servicemember, was charged under the UCMJ with conspiracy, larceny, and forgery related to a fraud scheme.
- Denedo pleaded guilty to reduced charges pursuant to a plea agreement limiting maximum confinement at a special court-martial.
- A military judge accepted the plea as knowing and voluntary and imposed confinement, reduction in rank, and a bad-conduct discharge.
- The Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) affirmed; the conviction became final under the UCMJ, and Denedo was discharged.
- After removal proceedings were initiated years later, Denedo sought to set aside the conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on incorrect advice that the plea carried no deportation risk.
- Denedo filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the NMCCA under the All Writs Act; the NMCCA found jurisdiction but denied relief on the merits.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) held the NMCCA had jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings on the ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(4) to review a CAAF decision that reverses and remands in coram nobis proceedings.
- Whether Article I military appellate courts have jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis petitions collaterally challenging final court-martial convictions they previously reviewed.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(4) because the CAAF’s reversal and remand constituted “relief.”
- The Court held military appellate courts may entertain coram nobis petitions attacking their prior, final judgments when the writ is “in aid of” their existing statutory jurisdiction.
- The Court rejected the argument that UCMJ finality provisions categorically bar coram nobis review.
- The Court affirmed the CAAF’s judgment and left the merits of Denedo’s ineffective-assistance claim to the military courts on remand.
Legal Principles
- “Relief” in 28 U.S.C. § 1259(4) includes a CAAF decision that reverses a service court and remands for further proceedings.
- The All Writs Act authorizes writs only “in aid of” a court’s existing jurisdiction; it does not independently create subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Coram nobis is treated as a further step in the original criminal case and is available only for errors of a fundamental character in extraordinary circumstances.
- A military appellate court that exercised statutory jurisdiction over a court-martial on direct review may, in appropriate circumstances, consider coram nobis directed at that same judgment even after finality under the UCMJ.
- UCMJ finality provisions (including Articles 73 and 76) do not automatically extinguish all authority to correct fundamental defects through extraordinary writs.
Conclusion
The Court held that the Supreme Court may review a CAAF reversal-and-remand as “relief” under § 1259(4) and that military appellate courts retain limited coram nobis jurisdiction, under the All Writs Act and in aid of their prior review authority, to consider fundamental-error challenges to final court-martial convictions.