In Re Stirewalt

                             IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
                                 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

In Re Darrell R. STIREWALT,                         11 October 2001
Health Service Technician Third Class,
U.S. Coast Guard,                                  PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY
                                                   RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A
                Petitioner                         WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS
                                                   FILED WITH THIS COURT ON
                                                   3 OCTOBER 2001

                                                    MISC. DOCKET No. 001-02

                                                    ORDER – PANEL FOUR

         Petitioner was convicted at a rehearing six months ago, after this Court affirmed some
earlier findings of guilty, set aside others, and set aside the sentence, with direction that the
record be returned to this Court for further review upon completion of the convening authority’s
action on the sentence. Now, without an appearance by counsel, and before return of the record
to this Court, Petitioner has personally filed with this Court a petition for extraordinary relief,
styled as a request for relief “in the nature of a writ of coram nobis.” One of Petitioner’s requests
is that this Court “lift its affirmance of guilt for charges previously reviewed,” based on new
evidence in the record, and “an unmeasured web of Unlawful Command Influence.” Other relief
requested, if any, is unclear. The petition does not provide details of the new evidence and
asserted command influence; nor is there a statement in the petition of the jurisdictional basis for
relief and the reasons why relief sought cannot be obtained during the ordinary course of
appellate review, as required by Rule 20(a)(7) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the
Courts of Criminal Appeals. Furthermore, the petition does not indicate why it was filed
personally by petitioner rather than by counsel, despite the requirement that the Government
provide petitioner with continuing representation after trial. See United States v. Leaver, 

36 M.J. 133

 (CMA 1992); United States v. Palenius, 

2 M.J. 86

 (CMA 1977); Hollywood v. Yost, 

20 M.J. 785

 (CGCMR 1985).

        There is a Constitutional right to represent oneself at trial. Faretta v. California, 

422 U.S. 806

 (1975). But there is no Constitutional right of self-representation either on direct appeal
from a criminal conviction or by an extraordinary-writ challenge to that conviction. Martinez v.
Court of Appeal, 

528 U.S. 152

 (2000); Price v. Johnson, 

334 U.S. 266, 285

 (1948). A Federal
statute sets out a party’s right to plead and conduct one’s own case in a court of the United States
and makes that right subject to court rules. 

28 U.S.C. § 1654

. Our rules appear to contemplate
self-representation in the filing of a petition for extraordinary relief, with the statement that:
“Each petition for extraordinary relief must be accompanied by a brief in support of the petition
unless it is filed in propria persona.” Rule 20(e) (emphasis added). It is the position of this
Court, however, that our rules do not grant an accused an absolute right to represent himself or
herself at this level either on direct appeal or by filing a petition for extraordinary relief. Rather,
such pro se representation is subject to the discretion of this Court. Furthermore, it is our ruling
that in a case such as this one – where petitioner has been previously represented by counsel,1
has a right to continuing representation by Government-provided counsel, and has given no
indication that he has been inappropriately deprived of representation – that we will not entertain
a petition filed in propria persona. Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 11th day of October
2001,

        ORDERED:

        That the Petition for Extraordinary Relief is hereby dismissed without prejudice to
Petitioner’s right to have his counsel raise the issues therein in the course of normal review.




                                                              Kevin G. Ansley
                                                              Clerk of the Court




Copy: Petitioner
      Chief, Office of Military Justice
      Appellate Government Counsel
      Appellate Defense Counsel




1
 United States v. Stirewalt, 

53 M.J. 582

 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2000); Stirewalt v. Pluta, 

54 M.J. 925

(C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2001).