Military Lawyers Virginia Alexandria Drug Distribution Court Martial Army Armed Forces

Military Lawyers Virginia Alexandria Drug Distribution Court Martial Army Armed Forces

ROBERT M. HOWARD-PINSON, Petitioner, v. ARMY CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD, Respondent.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

July 10, 2006, Decided

Howard-Pinson told Conner that he was afraid of being placed in pre-trial confinement because other drug dealers might attempt to silence him. Conner informed Howard-Pinson that he could not make any promises, but that he did not think that Howard-Pinson would be placed in pre-trial confinement. After Howard-Pinson signed the written statement admitting to drug distribution, he was informed that he would be placed in pre-trial confinement. He now alleges that his statement was false and involuntary and that he admitted to drug distribution because he was afraid of being placed in pre-trial confinement.

Prior to trial, Howard-Pinson's defense counsel moved to suppress Howard-Pinson's confession to Conner, alleging the statement was made involuntarily. After recessing to consider the motion, the military judge denied the motion tosuppress; the military judge found that the statement was "given voluntarily after a knowing and intelligent waiver of applicable rights. No one used unlawful coercion, influence, or inducements in obtaining [Howard-Pinson's statement]." Howard-Pinson appealed his case to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals that the military judge had committed prejudicial error by admitting two statements by Howard-Pinson that were obtained in violation of his rights to remain silent and cut off questioning under the Fifth Amendment and Miranda. ACCA found the findings and sentence correct in law and fact, and affirmed the findings of guilt and the sentence. Howard-Pinson then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, that court denied the petition for review.

In the instant petition, Howard-Pinson alleges that his statement was involuntary and asks the Court to set aside the findings of guilt in his court-martial, dismiss the charges against him, and release him from parole.

Issue:

Whether this court having an authority to review the claims rose in the habeas petition?

The authority of federal civilian courts to review military proceedings is circumscribed. When presented with a habeas petition challenging a military conviction, the role of a federal civilian court is limited to an assessment of whether the military courts gave "fair consideration" to the claims raised in the petition. Furthermore, the scope of review is restricted to issues of constitutional dimension.

When presented with a habeas petition seeking review of a military conviction, a federal district court must first determine (1) if the asserted error is of substantial constitutional dimension; (2) if the issue is one of law rather than of disputed fact already determined by the military tribunals; (3) if military considerations warrant different treatment of constitutional claims; and (4) if military courts gave adequate consideration to the issues involved and applied proper legal standards. If any of these conditions is absent, the district court should not review the claims raised in the habeas petition because it is not the role of civil courts to reassess facts and issues that were given fair considered by the military court.

Because Howard-Pinson's claim alleges a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, his petition clearly raises an issue of constitutional dimension. However, it is not clear that he raises an issue of law rather than an issue of fact. To be sure, he does attempt to frame the issue as a question of law by arguing that the military judge presiding over his trial disregarded the applicable law. However, that is not the case. The record shows that at trial the voluntariness of Howard-Pinson's admission was challenged and the trial judge made a factual determination as to whether Howard-Pinson had voluntarily admitted to drug distribution.

Howard-Pinson seeks to raise the same voluntariness issue in his petition. However, as discussed above, this is a factual issue that was addressed by the military court and therefore does not provide grounds for review of the military conviction.

Even accepting, arguendo, Howard-Pinson's argument that his petition raises a legal question, Howard-Pinson has not shown that the military courts failed to give adequate consideration to that issue. On appeal Howard-Pinson's counsel raised the voluntariness issue. Specifically, Howard-Pinson's appellate counsel argued that Howard-Pinson's admission was involuntary because it was made after the CID investigator continued to question him on hisdrug distribution activities even after he informed the investigator that he wanted to remain silent on that topic. Therefore Howard-Pinson's statement should not have been admitted into evidence. Importantly, Howard-Pinson's appellate counsel conceded that the theory that Howard-Pinson had only selectively invoked his right to remain silent was not raised at trial.

It is clear from the record that Howard-Pinson's counsel raised the same legal question here that he raised on appeal. An issue that has been presented to the military courts, even if it was disposed of summarily, has been given fair consideration. Howard-Pinson has failed to show that the military courts failed to give adequate consideration to the issues involved or applied an improper legal standard. Therefore, this Court will not review the decision of the military courts. Thus, this petition must be dismissed with prejudice.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

POST COMMENT

Modafinil Drug Information Do You Think Alcohol And Drugs Are Fun? The Three Ws To Recovery From Drug Addiction. Duane Reade Drug Store Is Not Better Than Santa Claus! Application of LED in medical field Abzan ( Sitz bath) A Regime in Unani System of Medicine Knowing More About Medical Transcriptionist The Benefits Of Medical Alert Systems Outsource Medical Billing Services – Get help of experts Important Information About Alcohol Drug Treatment Centers Unemployed Loans for Medical to Wash out Your Awkward Moments of Life 90 Shenzhen Drug Regulators Exposure "pseudo Drugs" - Pseudo-medicine, Pharmacy - Crystal Medical's Partnerone Alliance Program