450 E Street,
Northwest
SCHEDULED
HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt Scott T. Ayers,
Counsel for
Appellee: Capt Michael
C. Friess,
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of
willfully disobeying a superior officer, violating a lawful general
regulation
by attending a Ku Klux Klan rally, larceny, and, under Article 134,
UCMJ,
wrongfully advocating anti-government and disloyal statements, and
encouraging
participation in extremist organizations while identifying himself as a
U.S.
Army paratrooper, and advocating racial intolerance by counseling and
advising
individuals on racist views. The U.S.
Army Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the violation of the lawful
general
regulation, and affirmed the remaining charges.
Granted issue questions whether the specification under Article
134,
UCMJ, is unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to the Appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: LCDR Nancy J. Truax, USCG
Counsel for
Appellee: LCDR John S. Luce,
Jr., USCG
Case
Summary: SPCM
conviction of
dereliction of duty and various drug offenses.
Granted issue questions whether plain error
occurred when the military judge admitted evidence under
R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) during the sentencing
hearing that Appellant made baseless allegations against other crew
members
that caused a shut down of flight operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Richard A. Viczorek, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: LT
Craig A. Poulson, JAGC, USNR
Case Summary:
Appellee
moved to dismiss Appellant’s petition
for grant of review as untimely.
Specified issues ask:
(I) if a
service member has executed a power of
attorney regarding appellant rights, (A) what effect, if any, should
this Court
give to the provisions in a power of attorney that provide for
appellate
defense counsel to accept service of the decision of the Court of
Criminal
Appeals for purposes of starting the 60-day time period for filing a
petition
for grant of review under Article 67(b), UCMJ, and to decide whether to
file a
petition for grant of review or to waive the right under Article
67(a)(3),
UCMJ, and (B) under what circumstances, if any, may appellate defense
counsel
decide not to petition this Court for review without first attempting
to
contact the appellant?
(II) when a service
member has executed a power of attorney regarding appellate rights, and
appellate defense counsel is unable to contact appellant, under what
circumstances, if any, may counsel decide to forego filing any
petition,
including a “merits” petition?
(III) what are an
appellate defense counsel’s responsibilities to appellant once counsel
has been
served with the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals when a power
of
attorney regarding appellate rights has been executed by appellant, and
when there
is no such power of attorney?
(IV) if a petition is
filed out of time, is appellant required to set forth the specific
facts
demonstrating good cause for late filing? (A) if
appellant wishes to make a late filing, and such facts involve
attorney-client
communications, may counsel disclose those facts to the Court without
violating
the attorney-client privilege? And (B), if there appears to be a
colorable
claim of ineffective assistance of appellate defense counsel, or if
counsel’s
interests are otherwise potentially adverse to appellant’s, should the
Judge
Advocate General appoint another appellate defense counsel to represent
the
appellant with respect to the matter of the untimely filing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: LT Aimee M. Cooper, JAGC,
USNR
Counsel for
Appellee: Capt Roger E.
Mattioli, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM
conviction of the
unpremeditated murder of his infant daughter.
Granted issues question whether (I) the lower
court erred when it held that Appellant received the effective
assistance of
counsel for allegedly failing to investigate the facts of the case and
a potential
defense, and (II) whether the Appellant has been denied his right to a
timely
review of his conviction when almost five years passed from the
conclusion of
the court-martial to completion of review by the lower court.
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt John S. Fredland,
USAF
Counsel for
Appellee: Capt Jin-Hwa
L. Frazier,
USAF
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of an Air
Force nurse for dereliction of duty, wrongful possession of hydrocone,
wrongful
use of diazepam, and forgery of prescriptions.
Granted issue questions whether the military
judge
erred by ruling that the purported positive blood lab test for diazepam
was
admissible when the Government denied the defense access to the
evidence by
destroying the blood sample.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: John S. Keffer, Esq.
Counsel for
Appellee: Maj Steven R.
Kaufman, USAFR
Case
Summary: GCM
conviction of
receipt and possession of child pornography and use of a computer
website to
entice a child to engage in sexual activity.
On appeal, the conviction for receipt and
possession of child pornography was set aside.
The U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reassessed the
sentence
from a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 45 months, forfeiture of
all pay
and allowances and reduction to E-1 to a dishonorable discharge,
confinement
for 33 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to
E-1. Granted issue questions whether the
Court of
Criminal Appeals abused its discretion in reassessing the Appellant’s
sentence
rather than ordering a rehearing on sentence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt Richard A. Viczorek,
USMC
Counsel for
Appellee: LT Craig A.
Poulson, JAGC,
USNR
Case
Summary: SPCM
conviction for the
wrongful use of methamphetamine.
Granted
issue questions whether, in light of Crawford v. Washington,
541 U.S. 36
(2004), the Appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront
the
witnesses against him where the Government’s case consisted solely of
Appellant’s positive urinalysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: James W. Volberding, Esq.
Counsel for
Appellee: Maj Wilbur
Lee, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM
conviction of violating
a lawful regulation and wrongfully receiving and possessing child
pornography.
Granted issues question: (I) whether
Appellant received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in
violation of
the Sixth Amendment and R.C.M. 1202; (II) whether Appellant’s guilty
plea was
involuntary and therefore failed to meet the requirements of R.C.M.
910(d); and
(III) whether Appellant received ineffective assistance of defense
counsel in
violation of the Sixth Amendment.