450 E Street,
Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Craig A. Poulson, JAGC, USNR
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of carnal knowledge and adultery. Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred when it held that Appellant could not assert the husband-wife privilege over confidential marital communications because adultery is a crime against the spouse for purposes of M.R.E. 504 (c) (2) (A).
Followed by:
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt Rolando R. Sanchez, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Geoffrey S. Shows, USMC
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of failure to obey an order, cocaine use, adultery, and breaking restriction. Granted issue questions whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to inquire into the effect that Appellant’s medical problems had on his ability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Frank
J. Spinner, Esquire
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Jefferson E. McBride, USAF
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of receiving
child pornography.
Granted issues question: (I) Whether the military judge erred in
calculating
the maximum punishment and, if so, whether Appellant’s plea was
improvident
because it was based upon a substantial misunderstanding of the maximum
punishment; (II) Whether Appellant’s trial defense counsel
misapprehended the
maximum punishment and, if so, whether Appellant was deprived of his
right to
the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel’s advice
was based
upon an erroneous calculation of the maximum punishment.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case Summary:
GCM
conviction of cocaine and methamphetamine use, larceny, and failure to
obey a
restraining order. Granted issue questions whether having found that
the terms
of Appellant’s pretrial confinement violated Air Force instruction
(AFI)
31-205, and the Air Force Corrections System ¶¶ 5.8.1.2 and 7.1.1 (7
April
2004), the military judge erred in not determining that the violation
“involved
an abuse of discretion” permitting credit under R.C.M. 305 (k).
9:00
a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony Yim,
JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Craig A.
Poulson, JAGC, USNR
Case
Summary:
GCM conviction of conspiracy,
dereliction, larceny, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,
obstruction of justice, wrongfully obtaining credit card processing
services, destroying
evidence, and fraternization. The adjudged
sentence included a dismissal, confinement for five
years, and a fine of $400,000, with additional confinement of five
years if the
fine was not paid. The convening authority approved the dismissal and
confinement, but disapproved $100,000 of the fine and suspended the
remaining
fine over $200,000 for two years. Subsequently, a substitute convening
authority ordered the additional five years of confinement executed for
failure
to pay the unsuspended fine. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal
Appeals
dismissed the conspiracy and distribution of evidence offenses, but
otherwise
affirmed. Granted issues question: (I) whether a substitute convening
authority
can order additional confinement executed for failure to pay an
adjudged fine
after the sentence has been approved and executed; (II) If Appellant’s
contingent confinement was with proper authority, whether it was
appropriate in
light of other possible punishments adequate to meet the Government’s
need.
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: James A. Hernandez, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee:
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of rape and sodomy of a child,
indecent act with a child, indecent liberties with a child, indecent
language
to a child, providing alcohol to a minor, possession of child
pornography and
incest. Granted issues question: (I) whether Appellant was materially
prejudiced when trial counsel improperly commented in sentencing
argument about
Appellant not testifying in sentencing; (II) whether Appellant received
ineffective assistance of counsel because trial defense counsel (A)
failed to
object or ask for a curative instruction when trial counsel made
improper
argument in rebuttal; (B) failed to object to trial counsel’s
sentencing
argument when he referred to Appellant’s right to remain silent; (C)
advised
Appellant to remain silent during sentencing; and (D) failed to call
Appellant’s spouse and former spouse as witnesses during findings;
and (III) whether the specifications of renumbered Charge III (indecent
acts
with BCP) were multiplicious for sentencing with the specification of
renumbered Charge I (rape of BCP), or an unreasonable multiplication of
charges.
Followed by:
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony Yim, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Jessica M. Hudson, JAGC, USN
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of impaired driving, and introducing marijuana onto a military installation. Granted issue questions whether Article 112a, UCMJ, requires Appellant to actually know he was entering a military installation in order to be convicted of wrongful introduction onto a military installation.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15 minutes to present oral argument in this case.
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj John N. Page III, USAF
Counsel
for
Appellee:
Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault. Granted issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it required Appellant to demonstrate prejudice from the denial of his substantial pretrial right to an open Article 32 hearing, contrary to the Court’s opinion in United States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143 (C.M.A. 1978) that states the Court will not test for prejudice.
Followed by:
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Seth A. Director,
Counsel
for
Appellee: Capt Michael C. Friess,
Case Summary: GCM conviction of
rape and sodomy of a child. Granted issue questions whether the
military
judge abused her discretion by admitting expert testimony regarding the
alleged
victim’s medical examination over defense objection.