450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
John S. Fredland,
USAF
Counsel for Appellee:
Capt
Jefferson E. McBride, USAF
Case Summary: GCM conviction of using
cocaine and marijuana, assault with a dangerous weapon, disorderly
conduct, and
communicating a threat. Granted issue questions whether the military
judge abused his discretion in admitting Appellant’s confidential
communications with a psychologist during a commander-directed mental
health
evaluation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT
Brian L. Mizer, JAGC,
USNR
Counsel for Appellee:
Capt Roger
E. Mattioli, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of attempted
distribution of ecstasy, conspiracy to use and distribute a controlled
substance, using ecstasy, ketamine, LSD,
and
methamphetamine, possessing ketamine,
possessing
ecstasy with intent to distribute, and distributing ecstasy. Granted issues question: (I)
whether the lower court erred when it
held that the in-court accusations by the staff judge advocate and
trial
counsel that the military judge was involved in a homosexual
relationship with
the civilian defense counsel amounted to unlawful command influence but
were
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (II) whether the Government denied
Appellant his right to a speedy trial under the United States
Constitution and
Article 10, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. § 810, and (III) whether
Appellant was denied
due process of law where he served his entire sentence of forty-two
months
confinement before the lower court reached a decision in his case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
and
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt Larry W. Downend, JA
Counsel for Appellee Vanderschaaf: Maj Charles L.
Pritchard, Jr., JA
Counsel for Appellee Alexander:
Capt Stephen P. Watkins, JA
Case
Summary (Vanderschaaf):
GCM conviction
of wrongful
use of marijuana and ecstacy and wrongful
distribution of marijuana, ecstacy,
hashish, and
amphetamines.
The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals held
that the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact, but
subsequently
ordered the deletion of the words “on divers occasions” from various
specifications. The Judge Advocate
General of the Army certified the following issue to the Court: Whether
the
United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in ordering the
deletion of
the words “on divers occasions” from Specifications 1 through 6 of
Charge II
and Specifications 1 and 2 of Additional Charge I when the convening
authority
approved the adjudged findings and the Army Court affirmed the findings
and
sentence as approved by the convening authority.
Case Summary (Alexander):
GCM conviction
of wrongful
use and distribution of marijuana in the hashish form on divers
occasions while receiving special pay under 37 U.S.C.
310. The U.S. Army Court of Criminal
Appeals held that the findings and sentence as approved by the
convening
authority were correct in law and fact, but the court subsequently
ordered the
deletion of the words and figures “while receiving special pay under 37
U.S.C. 310” from two specifications. The Judge Advocate General of the Army
certified the following issue to the Court:
Whether the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred
in
ordering the deletion of the words and figures “while receiving special
pay
under 37 U.S.C. 310” from Specifications 1
and 2 of
the Charge when the convening authority approved the adjudged findings
and the
Army Court affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the
convening
authority.
(Petitioner)
(Respondent)
Counsel for Petitioner:
Teresa L. Norris, Esquire
Counsel for Respondent: Capt
Case
Summary: Petitioner’s
conviction and
death sentence have been previously affirmed by this Court and the
Supreme
Court. Petitioner now questions by a
Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Habeas
Corpus: (I) whether, regardless of the
unique
procedural posture of this case, this Court has the authority to apply
the
legal holdings in Ring, Apprendi, and Wiggins
in
addressing the issues before the Court; (II) whether, as is made clear
in Wiggins
v. Smith, this Court committed clear error during mandatory review
in
analyzing Loving’s ineffective assistance of counsel in sentencing
claim
because this Court failed to address the question of “whether the
investigation
supporting counsel’s decision[s] . . . was itself reasonable.”; (III)
whether
the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, holding that the
President’s
has delegated authority over sentencing matters, must be reconsidered
after Apprendi
v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona because it is now clear
that the
President exceeded his delegated authority in promulgating aggravating
factors
in R.C.M. 1004(c) because these “factors” are elements of the crime of
capital
murder; and (IV) whether the decisions in Apprendi and Ring
also
reveal that this Court’s decision was clearly erroneous because this
Court
rejected the argument that the required finding that mitigating
circumstances
are “substantially outweighed” by aggravating factors prior to
imposition of a
sentence of death could only be constitutional if determined under the
standard
of beyond a reasonable doubt.