2011 (September Term)
United States v. King, 71 M.J. 50 (in reviewing the adequacy of a specification, the analysis is limited to the language as it appears in the specification, which must expressly allege the elements of the offense, or do so by necessary implication).
2008 (September Term)
United
States v. Matthews, 68 M.J. 29 (it is
inappropriate to base an appellate
opinion on assertions dehors the record).
Denedo
v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (although
judicial review of immigration
proceedings, including any use therein of a court-martial conviction,
is
outside the jurisdiction of the CAAF, the providence of a guilty plea
at a
court-martial is subject to its review).
(in addition to issues of law,
the scope of
review at the court of criminal appeals extends to factual sufficiency
and
sentence appropriateness).
(the decisions of the court of
criminal
appeals are subject to direct review in the CAAF on issues of law;
cases in
which the CAAF have granted review or have otherwise provided relief
are
subject to direct review in the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari).
(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).
(the CAAF is not given
authority, by the All
Writs Act or otherwise, to oversee all matters arguably related to
military
justice, or to act as a plenary administrator even of criminal
judgments it has
affirmed; there is no source of continuing jurisdiction for the CAAF
over all
actions administering sentences that it at one time had the power to
review).
(when courts within the
military justice
system lack subject matter jurisdiction over an action, such as an
administrative separation, they cannot invoke the All Writs Act to
enlarge
their jurisdiction to review the administrative action, even if it is
based
upon the results of a court-martial).
(when a petitioner seeks
collateral relief to
modify an action that was taken within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the
military justice system, such as the findings or sentence of a
court-martial, a
writ that is necessary or appropriate may be issued under the All Writs
Act in
aid of the court’s existing 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).
(in terms of the scope of
collateral review,
the res judicata effect of Article 76, UCMJ, addressing the finality of
a
court-martial conviction after completion of direct review, means that
the
decision on direct review will stand as final unless it fails to pass
muster
under the highly constrained standards applicable to review of final
judgments).
(even when remedies have been
exhausted, the
scope of collateral review outside the military justice system is
constrained
by the requirement to consider whether the military justice system has
given
full and fair consideration to the claims at issue; de novo review is
appropriate only if the military justice system manifestly refused to
consider
those claims).
2007
United
States v. Carr, 65 M.J. 39 (an issue is moot
if resolving it would not result in a material alteration of the
situation for the accused or for the government; mootness is not
favored in criminal cases).
(an appellate court may reach
the merits of the granted issue of the providence of appellant’s pleas
of guilty to the lesser included offense of assault consummated by a
battery, even though appellant was eventually convicted, in a litigated
trial, of the indecent assaults originally charged, if the court cannot
determine with certainty what weight the military judge gave the guilty
plea, as opposed to the testimony, in finding appellant guilty of the
indecent assaults).
United States v. Pena, 64 M.J. 259 (on direct
appeal, the scope of CAAF’s review does not extend to supervision of
all aspects of the confinement and release process; rather, its review
of post-trial confinement and release conditions on direct appeal is
limited to the impact of such conditions on the findings and the
sentence).
(appellant’s contention that
he was improperly placed on involuntary appellate leave following his
release from confinement under the mandatory supervised release
program, because under an Air Force Regulation he had not technically
completed his period of confinement where he was under a continuing
threat of return to prison if he violated the terms of his release, did
not fall within the CAAF’s scope of review under Article 67, UCMJ; the
relationship between completion of confinement and commencement of
leave is a matter governed by administrative regulations and service
practices and appellant failed to demonstrate that the applicable
regulations, either on their face or as applied, violated Article 76a,
UCMJ, or any other provision of the UCMJ).
2002
(a remand mandate to clarify a finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the manner of death does not encompass overturning that finding and substituting specific findings as to the manner of death).
2000United States v. Fee, 50 MJ 290 (on appeals involving closely related cases with highly disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may reverse Court of Criminal Appeals only in the absence of a rational basis for the differing sentences).
United States v. Lacy, 50 MJ 286 (in reviewing actions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals on sentence appropriateness, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces review is limited to preventing obvious miscarriages of justice or abuses of discretion).
United States v. Lacy, 50 MJ 286 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ review of Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in case alleging highly disparate sentences is limited to three questions of law: (1) whether the cases are “closely related”; (2) whether the cases resulted in “highly disparate” sentences; and (3) if relief was not granted in a closely related case involving highly disparate sentences, whether there is a rational basis for the differences between or among the cases).
United States v. Riley, 50 MJ 410 (appellate courts have authority to set aside a finding of guilty and affirm only a finding of a lesser-included offense, but it may not affirm an included offense on a theory not presented to the trier of fact).
United States v. Dawson,
51 MJ 411 (an accused may waive defects in a vacation proceeding and
avoid a new vacation proceeding through communications and agreement
directly with the convening authority; such an agreement is collateral
to the original court-martial, but remains subject to appellate review
of claims that an appellant misunderstood the agreement’s meaning and
effect or that there was government overreaching).