I. FIRST PRINCIPLES: Jurisdiction: Of Courts of Criminal Appeals

FIRST PRINCIPLES: Jurisdiction: Of Courts of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Daly, 69 M.J. 485 (where the government’s notice of appeal under Article 62 was not timely filed, the CCA was without jurisdiction to consider the government’s appeal).

Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (although military appellate courts are among those empowered to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act, the Act confines a court to issuance of process in aid of its existing statutory jurisdiction and does not enlarge that jurisdiction).

(on direct appeal in courts-martial in which the sentence extends to a punitive discharge, the CCA conducts a de novo review of the findings and sentence approved by the convening authority; any request for coram nobis relief is limited to the findings and sentence of the court-martial reviewed by the CCA; where, as in this case, appellant has raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that goes directly to the validity and integrity of the judgment rendered and affirmed, a petition for writ of error coram nobis was in aid of the existing jurisdiction of the CCA).

(when court-martial jurisdiction has been invoked properly at the time of trial, the jurisdiction of the court of criminal appeals to review the case does not depend on whether a person remains in the armed forces at the time of such review).

United States v. Politte, 63 M.J. 24 (a Court of Criminal Appeals can only review cases within its statutory jurisdiction; under Article 66, UCMJ, the Courts of Criminal Appeals may hear a case on the merits where: (1) a Judge Advocate General refers courts-martial records to the court; (2) a convening authority has approved the findings and sentence; and (3) the sentence as approved extends to death, a dismissal, a punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more).

(regarding post-trial matters, Courts of Criminal Appeals have jurisdiction to refrain from addressing the merits of a case, and instead return an action to the convening authority if further clarification of the meaning of the action is necessary).

United States v. Riley, 58 MJ 305 (a lower court’s authority on remand is limited by the limitations and conditions prescribed by the remand).

United States v. Erby, 54 MJ 476 (the Courts of Criminal Appeals have authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, to determine whether a sentence is correct in law, and that authority includes determining on direct appeal if the adjudged and approved sentence is being executed in a manner that offends the Eighth Amendment or Article 55, UCMJ).