Mastropietro v. Nix
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT ON PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY ' RELIEF
Petitioner asks this Court to direct his release from confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks and dismiss the charges against him because his record of trial by general court-martial has not reached this Court, five months after the convening authority took his action.
Extraordinary relief, as the words indicate, is a special remedy to be exercised only in the unusual or exceptional case. It is not a substitute for an appeal and the petitioner must demonstrate that he will be unable to obtain adequate relief in the ordinary course of appellate review. West v. Samuel, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 290, 45 C.M.R. 64 (1972); Gale v. United States, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 40, 37 C.M.R. 304 (1967). In the instant case, the Petitioner has asserted that his right to timely appellate proceedings has been violated but he has not demonstrated how such a violation could not be remedied during the course of normal appellate review. Consideration of such an error is, in fact, appropriate during appellate review and it can be addressed at that time. United States v. Green, 4 M.J. 203 (C.M.A.1978); Rhoades v. Haynes, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 189, 46 C.M.R. 189 (1973).
[760] The normal appellate review of Petitioner’s case before this Court should be initiated momentarily. The Court received a letter from the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate of the general court-martial jurisdiction concerned on the same day this petition was filed, explaining that the record of trial had been “misrouted to the Philadelphia Naval Brig.” The record had been returned to the convening authority and the command had mailed it to this Court on 3 November 1981.
Accordingly, the Petition for Extraordinary Relief is dismissed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
12 M.J. 759 (Mastropietro v. Nix) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.