Thomas v. United States Disciplinary Barracks

625 F.3d 667 (2010)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Thomas v. United States Disciplinary Barracks

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
625 F.3d 667 (2010)

Facts

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.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tymkovich, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership