UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-185

Friday, June 30, 2006

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8018/AR.  Daniel I. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. The Judge Advocate General of the Army and Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Respondents.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus or a writ of habeas corpus was filed under Rule 27(a) on June 20, 2006, and placed on the docket this date.  On consideration thereof, said petition is hereby denied.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – FILINGS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 06-8018/AR.  Daniel I. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. The Judge Advocate General of the Army and Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Respondents.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0060/AF.  U.S. v. Stacey S. BROOKS.  CCA 35420.  Appellant's motion to submit documents granted.

 

No. 06-0657/AF.  U.S. v. Paul H. SCHRODER.  CCA 35855.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 31, 2006.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-184

Thursday, June 29, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0724/MC.  U.S. v. Abran C. ALMARAZ.  CCA 200501294.

No. 06-0725/AR.  U.S. v. Wesley FOSTER.  CCA 20030645.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-183

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0482/AF.  U.S. v. Bill J. SMITH.  CCA 35832.

No. 06-0501/AF.  U.S. v. Michael E. HARRIS.  CCA 35672.

No. 06-0516/AF.  U.S. v. Gabriel G. LOPEZ.  CCA 36306.

No. 06-0542/AF.  U.S. v. Aaron K. BLACKMAN.  CCA 35862.

No. 06-0548/AF.  U.S. v. Rhoderic J. MENDOZA.  CCA 36214.

No. 06-0549/AF.  U.S. v. Antwon L. OWENS.  CCA S30715.

No. 06-0559/AF.  U.S. v. Brian C. HILLS.  CCA 35985.

No. 06-0573/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. WILLIAMS, Jr.  CCA 36281.

No. 06-0635/AF.  U.S. v. Marc A. PALMOSINA.  CCA 36242.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0721/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. KELLY.  CCA 20040422.

No. 06-0722/NA.  U.S. v. Andre D. BROOKS.  CCA 200501378.

No. 06-0723/NA.  U.S. v. Daniel M. STRONG.  CCA 200500512.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0585/AR.  U.S. v. Stacy S. HOLDER-GIDDINGS.  CCA 20050507.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 06-0587/AR.  U.S. v. Donyale R. DAVIS.  CCA 20010891.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0592/NA.  U.S. v. Michael A. WHITE.  CCA 200101242.  Appellant’s motion to attach documents granted.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-182

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 06-0360/AF.  U.S. v. Randy J. DARJEAN.  CCA 35938.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that the staff judge advocate provided erroneous advice to the convening authority regarding the deferral and waiver of mandatory forfeitures.  See United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  In light of this error, we hold that Appellant’s request for deferral of mandatory forfeitures was improperly denied and that the convening authority improperly implemented a six-month waiver of mandatory forfeitures that included a period of time prior to his action when deferral was the appropriate mechanism.  Accordingly, said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO DEFER AUTOMATIC FORFEITURES UNTIL ACTION BASED ON ERRONEOUS LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE.

 

     The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, as is the convening authority’s action.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand for a new staff judge advocate’s recommendation and convening authority’s action.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0360/AF.  U.S. v. Randy J. DARJEAN.  CCA 35938.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0412/AR.  U.S. v. William L. WILES, III.  CCA 20051054.

No. 06-0487/AR.  U.S. v. Travion J. REED.  CCA 20050637.

No. 06-0519/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. COX.  CCA 20051075.

No. 06-0527/AR.  U.S. v. Danielle A. REED.  CCA 20040627.1/

No. 06-0538/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph E. DOWDY.  CCA 20041112.

No. 06-0582/AR.  U.S. v. Scott E. CRONQUIST.  CCA 20040172.

No. 06-0602/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin L. MCMAHAN.  CCA 20050982.

No. 06-0612/AR.  U.S. v. Omar E. JACKSON.  CCA 20051101.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0632/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. PALMARIN.  CCA 20050418.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 24, 2006.

 

No. 06-0640/AR.  U.S. v. Jake S. GOTHAM.  CCA 20031213.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 26, 2006.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0797/AR.  U.S. v. David P. CHRISTIAN.  CCA 20011021.

____________

 

1/  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected by adding the following words and figures to the end of the summary of Specification 9 following the word “visual:” “depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.”

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-181

Monday, June 26, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0699/AF.  U.S. v. Ashea L. FULLER.  CCA 35058.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 60 M.J. 424 (C.A.A.F. 2004), and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Brewer, 61 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2005), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.  The findings and sentence are set aside.  The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.  A rehearing is authorized.

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):  I dissent for the reasons set forth in Judge Baker’s opinion.  See United States v. Brewer, 61 M.J. 425, 439-44 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

BAKER, Judge (dissenting):  On the testimonial issue, the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Brewer.  Here, defense counsel proffered four witnesses who:

 

will testify about [sic] they were her roommates and friends.  They’ll testify about [sic] they can account for the majority of time for Airman Fuller during this charged timeframe.  That they were living with her, they would go to events with her, that she was active in community involvement and that they had direct observation of this community involvement. . . .

 

Further, counsel proffered that the witnesses would testify that they did not see Appellant use drugs or appear under the influence of drugs, thus offering Appellant an alibi for “specific times during this diverse occasions.”  The military judge granted the Government's request to bar the defense from putting on this evidence on the ground that “unless the witness has direct contact and observation of the Accused during the [charged] time frame, or the entire [charged] time frame, those are not alibi witnesses.”  United States v. Fuller, No. ACM 35058, slip op. at 5 (June 23, 2004)(emphasis added).

 

   However, as stated by the majority in Brewer, when the Government charges divers use over a period of time, a witness is not required to have direct and continuous contact with the accused over the entire charged period in order to testify regarding that contact.  Rather, a witness must have spent substantial and relevant time with the Appellant.  Thus, the military judge erred as a matter of law in rejecting Appellant’s alibi proffer.

 

With respect to the instructional issue, I adhere to my position in Brewer finding no error, in light of the content and totality of the instructions provided in Appellant's case.  As a result, in testing whether Appellant suffered material prejudice to a substantial right or not, I have considered only the error pertaining to the military judge′s exclusion of the defense witnesses.

 

In the context of this case, the error was constitutional in nature, because it prevented Appellant from putting on her defense that those persons who saw her most frequently over a substantial portion of the charged time frame had not seen her use cocaine.  In this case the scientific evidence indicated multiple uses of cocaine, up to five times per month, over a fifteen-month time period.  However, unlike the majority, I find that in the context of this case, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the same reasons identified by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

 

Appellant was charged with one specification of use on divers occasions, which carried the same sentence exposure as if the Government had charged a single use.  The Government's evidence was overwhelming.  This was not a naked urinalysis case.  Rather the Government's evidence included the results of a urinalysis test as well as a hair sample analysis.  Moreover, Appellant took the stand and in the words of the Court of Criminal Appeals, “appellant’s contradictory and implausible explanation for having cocaine in her system was utterly unpersuasive.”  Fuller, No. ACM 35058, slip op. at 7.

 

   As a result, I agree with the majority’s legal analysis, but respectfully dissent as to result.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0233/NA.  U.S. v. George G. TAYLOR.  CCA 200200435.1/

No. 06-0711/AR.  U.S. v. Michael JANSEN.  CCA 20051138.

No. 06-0712/AR.  U.S. v. James C. SIRMANS.  CCA 20051018.

No. 06-0713/AF.  U.S. v. Jose L. CORTEZ.  CCA 35906.

No. 06-0714/AF.  U.S. v. Heidi F. ADCOCK.  CCA 36018.

No. 06-0715/AF.  U.S. v. Kelly S. ERICKSON.  CCA 35495.

No. 06-0716/AF.  U.S. v. Michael J. HENDRICKSON.  CCA S30653.

No. 06-0717/AF.  U.S. v. Jeremy C. MIDKIFF.  CCA S30891.

No. 06-0718/AF.  U.S. v. James B. THOMAS.  CCA 35804.

No. 06-0719/AF.  U.S. v. Omar H. VILLANUEVA.  CCA 36343.

No. 06-0720/AF.  U.S. v. Alexander L. YOUNG.  CCA S30652.

____________

 

1/  Second petition filed in this case.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-180

Friday, June 23, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0705/AF.  U.S. v. Edward L. WALLACE III.  CCA 36318.

No. 06-0706/AF.  U.S. v. Rodney C. WILLIAMS.  CCA S30754.

No. 06-0707/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew L. CHERNACK.  CCA 36346.

No. 06-0708/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew J. DEAN.  CCA 36200.

No. 06-0709/NA.  U.S. v. Andrew F. MARQUEZ.  CCA 200201852.

No. 06-0710/AR.  U.S. v. Robbie D. INFINGER.  CCA 20040621.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0628/AR.  U.S. v. Gary T. WODKA II.  CCA 20031090.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 24, 2006.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-179

Thursday, June 22, 2006

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 03-0538/MC.  U.S. v. Nathan T. OTTO.  CCA 200001460.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 03-0538/MC.  U.S. v. Nathan T. OTTO.  CCA 200001460.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0219/MC.  U.S. v. Scipio J. WILLIAMS.  CCA 200101854.  Review granted on the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER THE DELAY IN APPELLANT'S POST-TRIAL PROCESSING VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO A TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0215/MC.  U.S. v. Dexter J. DANIELS.  CCA 200000835.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0704/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher L. HARRIS.  CCA 200500448.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0471/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick A. MONETTE.  CCA 20020088.  Appellant's motion for leave to file out of time a petition for reconsideration denied.

 

No. 06-0321/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy G. GILMORE.  CCA 200401106.  Appellant's motion to attach, submitted May 24, 2006, granted.

 

No. 06-0621/AR.  U.S. v. William H. MASCHEK.  CCA 20030064.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 21, 2006.

 

No. 06-0623/AR.  U.S. v. Willie K. EADDY.  CCA 20020143.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 20, 2006.

 

No. 06-0627/AR.  U.S. v. George L. HUBBARD.  CCA 20040778.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 20, 2006.

 

No. 06-8017/AF.  Lantz E. NAVE, Appellant, v. Colonel Nancy Paul, USAF, Military Judge and United States, Appellees.  CCA 2006-05.  Appellant's motion to stay proceedings denied.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-178

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0116/AF.  U.S. v. John E. CRAFTER.  CCA 35476.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE I FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE APPELLANT'S CONDUCT ALLEGED THEREIN DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SPECIFIED REGULATION.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 06-0291/NA.  U.S. v. David D. TATE.  CCA 200201202.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT VIOLATED RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 705(c) BY DENYING APPELLANT THE POST-TRIAL RIGHT TO SEEK CLEMENCY AND PAROLE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0584/NA.  U.S. v. Daniel A. BAHIRU.  CCA 200201645.

No. 06-0607/AF.  U.S. v. William C. LEINART.  CCA S30870.

No. 06-0625/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher B. THORPE.  CCA 20051212.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-177

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0421/AR.  U.S. v. Travis E. BARNES.  CCA 20040767.

No. 06-0422/AR.  U.S. v. Moses L. HAMILTON.  CCA 20030574.

No. 06-0451/AR.  U.S. v. Jose A. ZABALA, Jr.  CCA 20040798.

No. 06-0515/AR.  U.S. v. Antonio D. SAINES.  CCA 20030059.

No. 06-0570/AF.  U.S. v. Robert W. HENRY.  CCA S30787.

No. 06-0588/AF.  U.S. v. Travis M. JOSEPH.  CCA S30855.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0702/AR.  U.S. v. Wilfredo HERNANDEZ.  CCA 20050392.

No. 06-0703/AR.  U.S. v. Kelvin G. KEY.  CCA 20030152.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8016/NA.  Kevin R. SANFORD, Petitioner, v. United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent.  CCA 200600037.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise the matter asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0127/MC.  U.S. v. Jeffrey G. TOOHEY.  CCA 200001621.  Appellant's motion to attach document granted.

 

No. 06-0321/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy G. GILMORE.  CCA 200401106.  Appellant's motion to attach, filed April 28, 2006, granted.

 

No. 06-0417/NA.  U.S. v. Joseph R. KAMELY.  CCA 200201248.  Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 06-0510/MC.  U.S. v. Jason A. FORREST.  CCA 200000133.  Appellee's motion to file out of time an answer to the supplement to petition for grant of review granted.

 

No. 06-0611/MC.  U.S. v. Isaac D. ROBERSON.  CCA 200301539.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 17, 2006.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-176

Monday, June 19, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0345/NA.  U.S. v. Jonathon GRADY.  CCA 200501264.

No. 06-0368/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher M. COLGAN.  CCA S30698.

No. 06-0369/AF.  U.S. v. Carl B. MUNFORD.  CCA S30508.

No. 06-0391/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew G. BARBER.  CCA 20051056.

No. 06-0404/AR.  U.S. v. Trevor A. DELGADO.  CCA 20020929.

No. 06-0433/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas B. ALLEN.  CCA 20050151.

No. 06-0456/AR.  U.S. v. Wesley J. PIMENTEL.  CCA 20050622.

No. 06-0457/AR.  U.S. v. Luis E. GOMEZ-GONZALEZ.  CCA 20021205.

No. 06-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin J. MOCK.  CCA 20050947.

No. 06-0543/AF.  U.S. v. Dwayne C. DENNIS.  CCA 36132.

No. 06-0550/AF.  U.S. v. Josetta J. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA S30697.

No. 06-0558/AF.  U.S. v. Antonio C. COYL.  CCA S30677.

No. 06-0577/AR.  U.S. v. Alexis D. CRUZ-CAMACHO.  CCA 20051020.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0696/AF.  U.S. v. Codi R. COWARD.  CCA 35925.

No. 06-0697/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher J. ROSSI.  CCA 20040929.

No. 06-0698/AR.  U.S. v. James E. COMBS, III.  CCA 20050388.

No. 06-0699/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua D. PATTON.  CCA 20051047.

No. 06-0700/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan A. BROWN.  CCA 20050497.

No. 06-0701/AR.  U.S. v. Dean E. BODOH II.  CCA 20050984.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-175

Friday, June 16, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0695/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin E. PAXTON.  CCA 36092.