Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Loving v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 29, 2006No. 06-8006/ARPublished

1ConcurrenceEffron, Judge

I agree that Petitioner is entitled to a hearing under United States v. DuBay, 17, C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), and I agree with the structure of the hearing outlined in the lead opinion.

I write separately to address a threshold question on which we have not previously written: What standards and procedures should we apply in considering a petition for habeas corpus filed during the period between the completion of direct legal review under Article 71, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 871 (2000), and final action under Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 (2000)?…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API