This habeas petitioner was conviction by court-martial of murder with a Ninjatō sword and sentenced to life in prison. The federal courts here affirm the military court judgement.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122152
Decided November 15, 2010, filed November 18, 2010.
Opinion by US Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto:
In the brief there are set forth “[u]ncontested [f]acts” pertinent to the charge, which concerned the premeditated murder of Mrs. Brenda Salomon on August 18, 1989. (Id. at 17.) Petitioner confessed to the killing, revealing that while at the Shipwreck Lounge, he encountered Salomon and then left the lounge. When Petitioner entered his truck, Salomon, who was very drunk, tapped on the window and asked Petitioner to take her out to get something to eat. Petitioner agreed and bought Salomon some fast food. When Salomon passed out several times and failed to tell Petitioner where she lived, Petitioner stopped at a telephone booth and told her to get out of his truck and call someone to come to pick her up. When she called him names, slapped him, and failed to leave the truck, he drove into a wooded area, stopped, and ordered her out of the truck. A physical altercation ensued, and Petitioner pulled Salomon out of the truck. When Salomon removed her shorts, taunted Petitioner, and attacked him as he tried to enter his truck, Petitioner became enraged, hit her repeatedly, retrieved his “Ninja To” sword from the truck, and struck Salomon so hard that the sword’s handle detached from its blade. (Id. at 18, 21-23.) The blow severed her spinal cord and vertical arteries. (Id.)
Petitioner returned to the lounge after retrieving the sword and throwing Salomon’s things out of the truck, and stayed there until closing time. The body was discovered in a wooded area on the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base, and multiple items of corroborating evidence were found. (Id. at 17-18.)
Petitioner prosecuted as a court martial under military law, impacting this Court’s jurisdiction and scope of review:
In the present case, Petitioner acknowledges that his case was reviewed by both the Navy-Marine Corps of Military Review and the United States Court of Military Appeals. (Pet. 2.)
All of the petitioner’s claims here for habeas relief are denied, some are not ripe because of non-exhausted administrative remedies, regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct denied because the military court had already looked into it, and no jurisdiction to review military discharge.
This case opinion was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in January 2012, memorandum opinion before Judges Leavy, Tallman and Callahan.