Thomas v. United States Disciplinary Barracks

Army soldier Rochester Thomas (defendant) was convicted by the military of sex and assault crimes and sentenced to confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces each reviewed Thomas’s case and confirmed his sentences. The United States Supreme Court denied Thomas’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Having exhausted his direct-review options, Thomas filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a federal district court, arguing that his confinement was illegal because he had been denied effective assistance of counsel during his military-court appeals. The district court dismissed the petition because the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument (1) had not been raised during the military-court appeals and (2) was unlikely to succeed because the criminal case against Thomas was so strong. Thomas then filed a writ of error coram nobis with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, asking the military court to consider his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed extensive briefing from the parties and summarily denied Thomas’s request to overturn his convictions due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court reconsidered Thomas’s habeas corpus petition in light of the new record. The district court found that the military courts had adequately considered Thomas’s ineffective-assistance argument and denied the habeas corpus petition. Thomas appealed the denial to the Tenth Circuit.