United States v. Anderson

• Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 201200499
• Status: Published

Opinion

In Re NMCCA NO. 201200499 Joshua G. ANDERSON Hospitalman Apprentice (E-2) Panel 3 U. S. Navy Petitioner ORDER

UNITED STATES Denying Petition for Respondent Lack of Jurisdiction

On 7 January 2020, the Court received a letter from Petitioner, a resident of the Federal Correctional Complex LOW, Petersburg, Virginia. The letter is dated 8 December 2019 with the Subject: Erroneous Article 66 Review Findings. Petitioner asserts that “insufficient Article 66 review . . . took place in [his] case and . . . request[s] a new Article 66 review and appropriate relief. In the body of Petitioner’s letter, he also indicates that he is “submitting this request under the provisions of Art. 138, UCMJ . . . .” Petitioner’s direct appeal of his general court-martial pursuant to Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice was docketed with this Court on 3 December 2012. The Court issued its opinion in United States v. Anderson, No. 201200499, 2013 CCA LEXIS 517 (Jun. 27, 2013) (unpub. op.), modifying the findings and approving his sentence to confinement for 30 years, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. This Court’s opinion became final when Petitioner was notified of the completion of appellate review and the execution of his dishonorable discharge on 12 December 2013. On 1 January 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court, which we denied on 23 April 2018. Petitioner filed a writ-appeal petition with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction on 6 June 2018. On 9 July 2018, Petitioner filed another Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court, which we denied on 24 July 2018 for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner again filed a writ-appeal petition with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which once again dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction on 2 November 2018. Petitioner has engaged in a series of frivolous filings and once again failed to establish jurisdiction with this Court. Accordingly, it is, this 11th day of March 2020,

ORDERED:

1. That Petitioner’s Petition is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. That any future filing from Petitioner which fails to provide a prima facie basis for this Court’s jurisdiction to consider it will be summarily denied.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court