2006
United
States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (appellate
defense counsel must comply with
the fundamental duty to communicate effectively with the client;
however, in
the military justice system, there is a special duty of the appellate
defense
counsel to afford an accused the opportunity to raise issues; appellate
defense
counsel must not only communicate with an appellant but must identify
to an
appellate court those issues the appellant wishes to present).
2004
United
States v. Adams, 59 MJ 367 (an
appellant
has the right to representation
before the CCA by both detailed military and civilian counsel; in cases
where
the appellant is represented by both, the civilian counsel normally
exercises
the responsibilities of lead counsel for the defense).
2003
United States v. Dorman, 58 MJ 295 (individuals accused of crime shall have the assistance of counsel for their defense through completion of their appeal; this right includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel on appeal).
(pursuant to trial defense counsel’s continuing obligation to the client and the corresponding duty of confidentiality, we hold that trial defense counsel must, upon request, supply appellate defense counsel with the case file, but only after receiving the client’s written release).
Diaz v. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 59 MJ 34 (an accused has the right to effective representation by counsel through the entire period of review following trial, including representation before the Court of Criminal Appeals and our Court by appellate counsel appointed under Article 70, UCMJ).
(Article 70(a), UCMJ, places the responsibility for detailing appellate counsel on the government; if an onerous caseload hinders the timely processing of appeals or infringes on the effective assistance of counsel, then it is the government, not an appellant, who bears the responsibility to take corrective action).
(the standards for representation of service members by military or civilian counsel in military appellate proceedings are identical; in addition, the duty of diligent representation owed by detailed military counsel to service members is no less than the duty of public defenders to indigent civilians).
United States v. Brunson, 59 MJ 41 (CAAF Rule 30(a) requires that motions contain the factual or legal grounds for requesting relief; "administrative oversight" is merely a conclusion that provides neither a factual nor a legal basis for the relief sought).
(appellate
practitioners
should be on notice that this Court will not countenance further
disregard
of the Rules of Court and case law; in so ruling, this Court emphasizes
that disregard for the Rules besmirches the image of military justice;
this Court does not condone disregard of the Rules by accepting late
filings
when the delay seems to be the result of neglect and carelessness, and
it shall consider appropriate sanctions in the event of flagrant or
repeated
disregard of the Rules).