YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > GRANTS AND DISPOSITIONS

 


NEW GRANTS AND SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS      
(Last Updated 10/8/14)

Cases that have been decided will be removed from this page at the end of the term.
See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.


Subscribe to this feed Subscribe to this feed for updates on new grants and dispositions (Google Chrome will require free extension to see feed.)



Tuesday, October 7, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0724/NA. U.S. v. Nancy L. CASTILLO. CCA 201300280. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY DETERMINED THAT DUTY TO SELF-REPORT ONE'S OWN CRIMINAL ARRESTS FOUND IN OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS INSTRUCTION 3120.32C WAS VALID DESPITE THE INSTRUCTION'S OBVIOUS CONFLICT WITH SUPERIOR AUTHORITY AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, October 2, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0658/AR. U.S. v. Corey J. BENNETT. CCA 20111107. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ALLOWING AN EXPERT TO REPEAT TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, DENYING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, AND IF HE SO ERRED, WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONFESSION TO MARIJUANA USE WAS ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, September 18, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-6010/AF. United States, Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. Aaron M. BUFORD, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. CCA 2013-26. On consideration of the cross-petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 862, it is, ordered that said petition for grant of review is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) ERRED BY FINDING A.B. CONSENTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT'S SEARCH OF THE CENTON THUMB DRIVE AND THE DELL LAPTOP.

 

In accordance with Rule 19(a)(7)(A), Rules of Practice and Procedures, no further pleadings will be filed.




Monday, September 15, 2014

APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 14-0409/AF. U.S. v. Stephan H. CLAXTON. CCA 38188. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY CADET ERIC THOMAS WAS A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT FOR THE AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS (AFOSI) PURSUANT TO BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to an appropriate convening authority to order a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), to make findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the discovery matter underlying the granted issue. At the conclusion of the DuBay hearing, the record will be transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 866(c) (2012). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 867 (2012), shall apply.




Thursday, September 11, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0166/AF. U.S. v. Brittany N. OLSON. CCA S32034. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENSE'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM APPELLANT'S HOUSE BECAUSE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATED THAT APPELLANT'S CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS INVOLUNTARY.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0495/AR. U.S. v. Matthew R. ADAMS, Jr. CCA 20110503. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING THE PORTION OF APPELLANT'S SWORN STATEMENT REGARDING THE [THEFT] OF COCAINE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO CORROBORATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 304(g), THE ESSENTIAL FACT THAT APPELLANT TOOK COCAINE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0524/MC. U.S. v. Troy B. NORMAN. CCA 201300152. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE CONVICTION FOR CHILD ENDANGERMENT BY CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT WHEN THE ONLY TESTIMONY OFFERED TO PROVE ITS SERVICE DISCREDITING NATURE WAS ADMITTED IN ERROR.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Friday, September 5, 2014

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 14-0003/AF. U.S. v. Allen K. HOHENSTEIN. CCA 37965. 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 wrongful sexual contact offense (Specification 2 of Charge I) should be dismissed. The government conceded that the wrongful sexual contact offense was charged for exigencies of proof in case the panel did not convict Appellant of rape (Specification 1 of Charge I). Because the panel returned guilty findings for both specifications and the government agreed that these specifications were charged for exigencies of proof, it was incumbent on the military judge to dismiss the wrongful sexual contact specification. See United States v. Elespuru, 73 M.J. 326, 329-30 (C.A.A.F. 2014). Because the military judge did not dismiss this specification, we dismiss and set aside the finding of guilty for the wrongful sexual contact specification. However, because the military judge merged Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge I as one offense for sentencing purposes and instructed the panel accordingly, we are convinced Appellant was not prejudiced for sentencing. See id. at 330. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION UNDER SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE I SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THIS SPECIFICATION DISMISSED WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED SPECIFICATION 2 WAS CHARGED FOR EXIGENCIES OF PROOF WITH SPECIFICATION 1.

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Specification 2 of Charge I, but is affirmed in all other respects. The finding of guilty as to Specification 2 of Charge I is set aside, and Specification 2 of Charge I is dismissed.

 

No. 14-0638/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan T. DANIEL. CCA 38322. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and, the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

* It is noted that the military judge neglected to seal the portion of the record and the exhibits pertinent to an MRE 412 closed hearing. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to seal Appellate Exhibits I-IV and pages 11-46 of the transcript.




Thursday, August 28, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0505/AR. U.S. v. Martin L. CARROLL. CCA 20111158. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF HIS COMMANDER IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 90, UCMJ, WHEN THE ULTIMATE OFFENSE AT ISSUE WAS THE MINOR OFFENSE OF RESTRICTION BREAKING DESCRIBED UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, AND THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT APPELLANT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING RESTRICTION WAS ISSUED WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY OF HIS COMMANDER'S OFFICE TO LIFT THE DUTY "ABOVE THE COMMON RUCK."

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, August 25, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0616/AR. U.S. v. Timothy E. BENNITT. CCA 20100172. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY RE-AFFIRMING APPELLANT'S APPROVED SENTENCE AFTER THIS COURT SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0619/AR. U.S. v. Aaron J. TWINAM. CCA 20120384. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA WHEN HE IGNORED THE ULTIMATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE AND FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY OF FAILURE TO OBEY AN ORDER OR REGULATION.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, July 31, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 13-0522/AF. U.S. v. David J.A. GUTIERREZ. CCA 37913. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED ASSAULT LIKELY TO RESULT IN GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

 

II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED ADULTERY.

 

III. WHETHER THE FACIALLY UNREASONABLE DELAY IN POST TRIAL PROCESSING DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO SPEEDY REVIEW PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES V. MORENO, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

   

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 14-8014/AF. U.S. v. Mark K. ARNESS. Crim. App. Dkt. No. 2013-30. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition filed by Appellant for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, it is ordered that the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force appoint counsel to represent Appellant, and that both parties submit briefs on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS WHERE THERE WAS NO STATUTORY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(b)(1), UCMJ, ON THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION AND THE CASE WAS NOT REFERRED TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL UNDER ARTICLE 69(d)(1), UCMJ, AND WHERE THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS RELIED ON POTENTIAL JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 69(d), UCMJ, AS ITS BASIS FOR ENTERTAINING THE WRIT (CITING DEW V. UNITED STATES, 48 M.J. 639 (ARMY CT. CRIM. APP. 1998)).

 

Briefs will be filed with the Court by August 29, 2014.




Tuesday, July 29, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0558/AR. U.S. v. Aaron D. AMAYA. CCA 20120406. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA WHEN HE IGNORED THE ULTIMATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE AND FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY OF DISOBEYING A LAWFUL ORDER OF A SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Friday, July 25, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-5007/AF. U.S. v. Steven S. MORITA. CCA 37838. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT A RESERVIST CAN CREATE COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION BY FORGING ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS AND/OR INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING ORDERS AND BY FINDING THAT COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION EXISTED FOR EACH 120-DAY PERIOD LISTED ON THE THREE APPLICATIONS FOR MPA MAN-DAY TOURS.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, July 8, 2014

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 14-6010/AF. U.S. v. Aaron M. BUFORD. CCA 2013-26. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and supporting brief were filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE FROM THE DELL LAPTOP, HEWLETT-PACKARD LAPTOP, AND CENTON HARD DRIVE.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-6009/MC. U.S. v. Ruben VARGAS. CCA 201300426. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED ARTICLE 62, UCMJ, TO ALLOW A GOVERNMENT APPEAL OF THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DENIAL OF A CONTINUANCE REQUEST AS WELL AS THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ORDER RESTING THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE.

 

In accordance with Rule 19(a)(7)(A), Rules of Practice and Procedure, no further pleadings will be filed.




Friday, June 27, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0057/AF. U.S. v. William R. JONES. CCA 38028. Upon further consideration of the granted issue, 73 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 23, 2013), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE DE FACTO OFFICER DOCTRINE CONFERRED VALIDITY UPON JUDGE SOYBEL'S PARTICIPATION IN THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS' DECISION IN APPELLANT'S CASE. SEE RYDER v. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177, 182-84 (1995); NGUYEN v. UNITED STATES, 539 U.S. 69, 72-73 (2003); UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN-FOREIGN S.S. CORP., 363 U.S. 685 (1960); AYSHIRE COLLIERIES CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 132 (1947); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425, 446 (1886); UNITED STATES v. JANSSEN, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2014); UNITED STATES v. ELLIOTT, 15 M.J. 347 (C.M.A. 1983).

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0322/MC. U.S. v. Matthew A. GILBREATH. CCA 201200427. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVISTS, SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT UNDER THE UCMJ, ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF ARTICLE 31(b) WHEN QUESTIONED BY SENIOR SERVICE MEMBERS ABOUT SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT COMMITTED ON ACTIVE DUTY.

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, AND MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 305.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0415/AR. U.S. v. William E. NEWTON, Jr. CCA 20110499. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. SECTION 2250(a) (2006), APPLIED TO APPELLANT AS A RESULT OF EITHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 2007 INTERIM RULE OR HIS 2008 GUIDELINES. SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES v. LOTT, 750 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014); UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS, 710 F.3d 498 (3d Cir. 2013.)

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.*

 

* Judge Ohlson has recused himself from participation in this case.




Tuesday, June 17, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0491/AR. U.S. v. Jacob T. NEMETH. CCA 20120653. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILT TO DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF HIS COMMANDER IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 90, UCMJ, WHEN THE ULTIMATE OFFENSE AT ISSUE WAS THE MINOR OFFENSE OF RESTRICTION BREAKING DESCRIBED UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, AND THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT APPELLANT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING RESTRICTION WAS ISSUED WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY OF HIS COMMANDER'S OFFICE TO LIFT THE DUTY "ABOVE THE COMMON RUCK."

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, June 11, 2014

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 14-5009/AF. U.S. v. Patrick J. HUEY. CCA 38139. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT IMAGES 00395505, 00394392, 00395408, 00395454, 00365481, FROM PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 11; THE THIRD AND FOURTH IMAGES ON PAGE 5, THE SECOND IMAGE ON PAGE 7, THE IMAGE ON PAGE 9, THE IMAGE ON PAGE 12, AND THE IMAGE ON PAGE 14 OF PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 14; IMAGE 00180276 IN THE "NON NCMECCP" FOLDER AND IMAGES ON PAGES 11, 14, 29, 31, 41, AND 42 IN THE WORD DOCUMENT TITLED "PE_THUMBNAILS" OF PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 15 DID NOT CONSTITUTE VISUAL DEPICTIONS OF A MINOR ENGAGED IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT AS A MATTER OF LAW.




Monday, June 9, 2014

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 14-5008/AF. U.S. v. Joshua KATSO. CCA 38005. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND APPELLEE'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE PERMITTED, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DNA EXPERT, AND THAT THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS.




Thursday, June 5, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0457/AR. U.S. v. Eric R. CASTILLO. CCA 20110935. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER, UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENSE IMPLIED BIAS CHALLENGE AGAINST LTC DS IN LIGHT OF HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM, HIS DIRECT SUPERVISORY ROLE OVER TWO OTHER MEMBERS, HIS ONGOING RELIANCE ON THE TRIAL COUNSEL FOR MILITARY JUSTICE ADVICE, THE PRESENCE OF FOUR OTHER MEMBERS WHO ALSO RECEIVED MILITARY JUSTICE ASSISTANCE FROM THE TRIAL COUNSEL, AND THE FACT THAT THE PANEL WAS SELECTED EXCLUSIVELY FROM APPELLANT'S BRIGADE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, June 3, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0199/AR. U.S. v. Bryce M. PHILLIPS. CCA 20120585. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF HIS COMMANDER IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 90, UCMJ, WHEN THE ULTIMATE OFFENSE AT ISSUE WAS THE MINOR OFFENSE OF BREAKING RESTRICTION DESCRIBED UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, AND THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT APPELLANT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING RESTRICTION WAS ISSUED WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY OF HIS COMMANDER'S OFFICE TO LIFT THE DUTY IN THE PARLANCE OF THIS COURT'S EARLIER OPINION, "ABOVE THE COMMON RUCK."

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0289/AR. U.S. v. Jordan M. PETERS. CCA 20110057. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE IMPLIED BIAS CHALLENGE AGAINST LTC JC, IN LIGHT OF LTC JC'S PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH TRIAL COUNSEL, THE SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY, AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, May 29, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0453/AR. U.S. v. James S. PIREN. CCA 20110416. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY OVERRULING THE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S SCOPE OBJECTION DURING THE GOVERNMENT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF APPELLANT.

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS RESULTS OF THE DNA ANALYSIS.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, May 12, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW


No. 14-0384/AF. U.S. v. Patrick J. HUEY, Jr. CCA 38139. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILT RESTED ON CONDUCT THAT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, IN THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE IMAGES PRESENTED TO THE FINDER OF FACT WAS NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, April 24, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0501/AF. U.S. v. Jessica E. MCFADDEN. CCA 37438. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.           WHETHER THE AFCCA ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO EXCUSE FOR CAUSE A COURT MEMBER WHO ACCUSED APPELLANT OF LYING BY OMISSION BY EXERCISING HER ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

 

II.         WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR A MISTRIAL AFTER A COURT MEMBER ACCUSED APPELLANT OF LYING BY OMISSION BY EXERCISING HER ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, April 22, 2014

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 14-5007/AF. U.S. v. Steven S. MORITA. CCA 37838. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THE COURT-MARTIAL LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO GRANT THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS.




Friday, April 18, 2014

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 14-5006/AF & 14-0283/AF. United States, Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Justin M. PIOLUNEK, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. CCA 38099. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and supporting brief were filed under Rule 22 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT IMAGES 8308, 8313, AND 0870 DID NOT CONSTITUTE VISUAL DEPICTIONS OF A MINOR ENGAGED IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee will file a brief on both the issue granted review on April 1, 2014, and on the certified issue on or before May 19, 2014.

 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant will file a brief on the granted issue and may consolidate in that brief a reply to the brief of the Appellant/Cross-Appellee on the certified issue no later than 30 days after the filing of the brief of Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee may file a reply brief on the granted issue no later than 10 days after the filing of the brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant on the granted issue.




Tuesday, April 1, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0283/AF. U.S. v. Justin M. PIOLUNEK. CCA 38099. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR POSSESSION AND RECEIPT OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON DIVERS OCCASIONS MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE SEVERAL IMAGES OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, A GENERAL VERDICT WAS ENTERED, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER SAID IMAGES CONTRIBUTED TO THE VERDICT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, March 12, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0222/AF. U.S. v. Adrian TORRES. CCA 37623. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENSE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, February 5, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0033/AF. U.S. v. Anthony L.W. PEACOCK. CCA 38043. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL THAT REVIEWED THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, December 23, 2013

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0057/AF. U.S. v. William R. JONES. CCA 38028. Review granted on the following issue:

 

PURSUANT TO THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN RYDER v. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995), APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE A PROPERLY CONSTITUTED PANEL OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA). WAS PETITIONER DENIED THAT RIGHT WHEN HIS CASE WAS HEARD BY A CIVILIAN JUDGE WHO WAS NOT PROPERLY APPOINTED TO THE AFCCA?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0060/AF. U.S. v. Jeremy J. GRAWEY. CCA S32029. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL THAT REVIEWED THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0125/AF. U.S. v. Danny L. ANNIS. CCA 38001. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL THAT REVIEWED THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0138/AF. U.S. v. Danny M. BURNS. CCA 37847. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL THAT REVIEWED THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0156/AF. U.S. v. Devon P. JOHNSON. CCA S32047. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL THAT REVIEWED THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0157/AF. U.S. v. Alphonso K. DIXON. CCA S32061. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL THAT REVIEWED THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001
(202) 761-1448 / DSN 763-1448 • (202) 761-4672 fax