YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > GRANTS AND DISPOSITIONS

 


NEW GRANTS AND SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS      
(Last Updated 2/26/15)

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.)




Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Petitions for Grant of Review Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0239/AR. U.S. v. Joshua C. Hudsoncurrier. CCA 20110737. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we agree with Appellant's personally-asserted contention that the Government failed to prove the existence of an agreement to commit the offense of aggravated assault. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Charge I and its Specification. The findings of guilty as to Charge I and its Specification are set aside and that charge and specification are dismissed. The remaining findings are affirmed. Inasmuch as Appellant suffered no prejudice as to his sentence because the military judge merged the conspiracy charge with the underlying aggravated assault charge for sentencing purposes, the sentence is affirmed.




Monday, February 23, 2015

Certificates for Review Filed

 

No. 15-0387/CG. U.S. v. Christopher S. Cooley. CCA 1389. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

 

WHETHER THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT PRE-TRIAL CONFINEMENT CAN SERVE AS PER SE PREJUDICE FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.

 

WHETHER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPELLEE'S CASE, CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET OUT IN BARKER V. WINGO, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) AND APPLIED TO REVIEW OF ARTICLE 10 BY UNITED STATES V. BIRGE, 52 M.J. 209, 212 (C.A.A.F. 1999), AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.




Thursday, February 12, 2015

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 15-0206/NA. U.S. v. Jeffrey F. Morris. CCA 201300348. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

DOES IMAGE 106470 IN PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 2 CONSTITUTE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY UNDER UNITED STATES v. WARNER, 73 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2013)?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Appeals Summary Dispositions

 

No. 14-0491/AR. U.S. v. Jacob T. Nemeth. CCA 20120653. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Nemeth, No. 20120653 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish "a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the guilty plea." United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that his company commander issued the restriction order for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant violated the restriction order. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 14-0505/AR. U.S. v. Martin L. Carroll. CCA 20111158. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Carroll, No. 20111158 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish "a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the guilty plea." United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that his company commander issued the restriction order for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant violated the restriction order. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 14-0558/AR. U.S. v. Aaron D. Amaya. CCA 20120406. On consideration of the granted issue, and the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Amaya, No. 20120406 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2014), we conclude that the military judge granted Appellant the relief to which he was entitled by reducing the maximum punishment for disobeying an order not to travel outside the limits of Fort Richardson, under Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 892 (2008), to that authorized for breaking restriction under Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 934 (2008). See Manual for Courts Martial, United States pt. IV, 16.e. Note (2008 ed.). Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 14-0619/AR. U.S. v. Aaron J. Twinam. CCA 20120384. On consideration of the granted issue, and the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Twinam, No. 20120384 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2014), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief. The maximum punishment for violations of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 892 (2008), does not apply "if the violation of failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order." Manual for Courts-Martial, United States pt. IV, 16.e. Note (2008 ed.) Although the military judge did not note that he was limiting the maximum punishment for the Article 92 offense, the maximum punishment did not change. Article 19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 819 (2012) (setting the statutory maximum confinement that can be imposed by a special court-martial at one year). Appellant pled guilty to desertion, numerous AWOLs and failures to go, wrongful use of cocaine and marijuana, and larceny of computer materials with a value greater than $500. Articles 85, 86, 112a, 121, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 885, 886, 912a, 921 (2008). The maximum punishment for these offenses, separate from any Article 92 offense, exceeded the statutory jurisdiction of the special court-martial. The convening authority, acting in accord with the pretrial agreement, disapproved Appellant's sentence to confinement in excess of four months. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the military judge's omission "did not substantially influence the sentence and materially prejudice Appellant's substantial rights." United States v. St. Blanc, 70 M.J. 424, 430 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (citing Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 859(a) (2006)). Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 14-0650/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth E. Hagstrom. CCA 20121058. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Hagstrom, No. 20121058 (A. Ct. Crim. App. May 27, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish "a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning his guilty plea." United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that his company commander issued the order requiring him to sign in at the Charge of Quarters desk for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant failed to do so. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 15-0048/AR. U.S. v. Joshua R. Baker. CCA 20120839. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Baker, No. 20120839 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 27, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish "a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning his guilty plea." United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that the superior commissioned officer issued the restriction order for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant violated the restriction order. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 15-0116/AR. U.S. v. Derrick L. Hardy. CCA 20120816. On consideration of the granted issue, the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Hardy, No. 20120816 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 13, 2014), and the judgment of this Court in United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 6, 2015), we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to have his guilty plea to disobeying the order of his superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890 (2012), set aside. Appellant did not establish "a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning his guilty plea." United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008). He failed to produce evidence that the superior commissioned officer issued the restriction order for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty that would apply if Appellant violated the restriction order. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.




Friday, February 6, 2015

Petitions for Grant of Review Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0228/MC. U.S. v. Myles R. Spurling. CCA 201400124. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals applied erroneous standards of review in evaluating Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. First, in its review of the facts and circumstances to determine whether a motion to suppress would have been meritorious, the Court of Criminal Appeals relied on the subjective beliefs and opinions of the questioner and third-parties in assessing whether Appellant faced questioning from an individual in an official capacity or for disciplinary purposes. As we made clear in United States v. Jones, 73 M.J. 357, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2014), the analysis is informed by an objective standard. Additionally, when the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the motion to suppress would have been "meritorious," it correctly cited the "reasonable probability" of success standard but then equated that standard with a standard of preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Spurling, No. NMCCA 201400124, slip op. at 7 n.18 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2014). Whether a motion is meritorious falls under the "reasonable probability" standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1994), and "[a] reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. See United States v. Jameson, 65 M.J. 160, 161-62 (C.A.A.F. 2007). Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the wrong standard in assessing the meritorious aspect of the ineffective assistance claim.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (1) APPLIED AN ERRONEOUS STANDARD OF REVIEW IN EVALUATING WHETHER A MOTION TO SUPPRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN MERITORIOUS IN ASSESSING APPELLANT'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM, AND (2) ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT ANY SUCH MOTION WOULD FAIL BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO WARNINGS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 31(b).

 

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand 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), utilizing the standards of review set forth in Jones and Strickland. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 867 (2012), shall apply.




Monday, February 2, 2015

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0273/AR. U.S. v. Corey A. Soucek. CCA 20140142. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted and the decision is affirmed.*

 

* It is ordered that the court-martial promulgating order be corrected to reflect that the sentence included confinement for eight months vice six months.




Friday, January 30, 2015

Certificates for Review Filed

 

No. 15-0347/MC. U.S., Appellant v. Christopher A. Quick, Appellee. CCA 20201300341. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:

WHETHER PRECEDENT AUTHORIZING COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TO ORDER SENTENCE-ONLY REHEARINGS SHOULD BE OVERRULED BASED ON (A) JACKSON v. TAYLOR, 353 U.S. 569 (1957), WHICH STATED "NO [SUCH] AUTHORITY" EXISTS; (B) THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE INCLUDING THE CONJUNCTIVE "FINDINGS AND SENTENCE" IN ARTICLE 66(d) IN CONTRAST TO AUTHORITY GRANTED THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL IN ARTICLE 69(a) TO ACT WITH RESPECT TO "FINDINGS AND SENTENCE OR BOTH" AND THE CONVENING AUTHORITY IN ARTICLE 60(f)(3) TO ORDER SENTENCE REHEARINGS; AND (C) JUDICIAL ECONOMY.

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before March 2, 2015.




Thursday, January 22, 2015

Appeals - Summary Dispositions


No. 14-0660/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. Budka. CCA 20120435. On further consideration of the granted issues (74 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Oct. 23, 2014)), and the briefs of the parties, we first conclude that the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals did not abuse its discretion and did not violate the principle of party presentation, as outlined in Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243-44 (2008), when it summarily affirmed the finding of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault after the Government conceded that the factual predicate for that offense had not been met. Under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 866(c) (2012), the Court of Criminal Appeals may affirm only such findings of guilty as it finds correct in law and fact, and "[i]n considering the record, it may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact, recognizing that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses." These factfinding powers are "unparalleled among civilian appellate tribunals," and the decision in Greenlaw did not take those powers into consideration. United States v. Baker, 28 M.J. 121, 122 (C.M.A. 1989). Neither the Court of Criminal Appeals, nor this Court, is bound by government concessions. See United States v. Emmons, 31 M.J. 108, 110 (C.M.A. 1990); United States v. Hand, 11 M.J. 321, 321 (C.M.A. 1981); United States v. Wille, 9 C.M.A. 623, 627, 26 C.M.R. 403, 407 (1958); United States v. McNamara, 7 C.M.A. 575, 578, 23 C.M.R. 39, 42 (1957); United States v. Patrick, 2 C.M.A. 189, 191, 7 C.M.R. 65, 67 (1953). Second, we conclude that Appellant's plea of guilty to aggravated assault was provident and that the military judge did not abuse her discretion by accepting the plea. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.




Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Orders Granting Petition for Review


No. 15-0129/AR. U.S. v. Orval W. Gould, Jr. CCA 20120727. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION OF PRODUCTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WHERE THE IMAGES IN QUESTION DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, January 15, 2015

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 14-0685/AF. U.S v. Wilber J. McIntosh, Jr. CCA 37977. 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 on the following issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE WHICH STRONGLY CORROBORATED THE DEFENSE THEORY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE WERE FALSE.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0202/AR. U.S. v. Alvin C. Endsley. CCA 20130052. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of United States v. Lubasky, 68 M.J. 260 (C.A.A.F. 2010), we note that the proper victims in the Specification of the Charge were the merchants who provided the goods upon false pretenses, not the debit cardholder/Soldier. However, the charge sheet, stipulation of fact, and the providence inquiry focused on the Soldier as the victim, and there was no discussion on the record of whether the merchants were victimized. See Lubasky, 68 M.J. at 263. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO LARCENY OF THE PROPERTY OF SPECIALIST DT WHEN THE ALLEGED LARCENIES INVOLVED THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF SPECIALIST DT'S DEBIT CARD NUMBER TO OBTAIN THE RETAIL GOODS OF A MERCHANT BY FALSE PRETENSE.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to the Charge and its Specification and the sentence. The findings of guilty as to the Charge and its Specification are set aside. The remaining findings are affirmed. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court may either dismiss the Charge and its specification and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findings, or it may order a rehearing on the affected charge and specification and the sentence.




Monday, January 5, 2015

Certificates for Review Filed

 

No. 15-0289/AF. U.S. v. Roy A. Bowser. CCA 2014-08. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for 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, and supporting brief were filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

 

I.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GRANT TRIAL COUNSEL A BRIEF CONTINUANCE TO CONSULT WITH THEIR SUPERVISORY ATTORNEYS, FINDING PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND BAD FAITH FOR THE FIRST TIME SEVENTEEN DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED, AND DISMISSING ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH PREJUDICE.

 

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN, CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 62(B), UCMJ, IT REQUESTED FACTS OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD SOLICITED IN ORAL ARGUMENT TO "PARTIALLY INFORM [ITS] DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION."

 

III. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE WAS APPROPRIATE DESPITE EXPRESSLY FINDING 1) TRIAL COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE WAS REASONABLE AND 2) "THE RECORD CONTAINS [ ] INFORMATION INCONSISTENT WITH [THE MILITARY JUDGE'S] FINDINGS OF FACT."

 

Appellee will file an answer under Rule 22(b) on or before January 15, 2015.




Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 14-0767/AR. U.S. v. Brian A. Murphy. CCA 20120556. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT AMMUNITION CONSTITUTES AN EXPLOSIVE FOR PURPOSES OF THE SENTENCE AGGRAVATOR OF ARTICLES 108 AND 121, UCMJ.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Mandatory Review Case Filed

 

No. 15-0260/AF. U.S. v. Andrew P. Witt. CCA 36785. Notice is hereby given that a case requiring mandatory review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals in which the affirmed sentence extends to death was filed under Rule 23 on this 24th day of December, 2014.*

 

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 23(b), not to exceed 250 pages, no later than sixty days after the date of this notice. Appellee will file a brief, not to exceed 250 pages, within sixty days of the filing of Appellant's brief. Appellant may file a reply brief, not to exceed 50 pages, within twenty days of the filing of Appellee's brief. The briefs may be filed electronically, but should counsel file said pleadings in a paper format, such pleadings shall conform in all respects to the requirements of Rule 37(a), with the additional requirement that they be printed on 3-hole pre-punched paper and otherwise comply in all respects with Rule 24(f)(2). The briefs and the reply, if any, shall be divided into the following parts: Part A shall set forth systemic issues and case-specific issues raised before the Court of Criminal Appeals but not previously decided by this Court; Part B shall set forth all issues not raised before the court below; Part C shall set forth systemic issues previously decided by this Court but raised to avoid waiver; these issues may be listed without argument as an exception to Rule 24(a), but must cite pertinent authority to support the position taken. All exhibits cited in the pleadings filed before this Court shall be included in the Joint Appendix. After all pleadings have been submitted, Appellant and Appellee are directed to seek agreement on the issues to be heard at oral argument, and to inform the Court of those issues. If no agreement can be reached, the parties will so advise the Court within 10 days of the date of the filing of the last pleading, and the Court will resolve any differences.

 

* The caption on the document filed by the Judge Advocate General states that it is a "Certificate for Review" rather than a "Mandatory Review Case" as required by Rule 23. However, upon review of the document, this appears to be a scrivener's error.




Monday, December 22, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 14-0678/NA. U.S. v. Richard B. Freeman III. CCA 201300102. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to list all three specifications under Charge I, the accused's pleas to each, the findings to each, and the "other disposition" ordered by the military judge to the second specification.




Friday, December 19, 2014

Certificates for Review Filed

 

No. 15-0247/AF. U.S. v. Eddy C. Soto. CCA 38422. 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 issues:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) COMMITTED LEGAL ERROR BY APPLYING AN ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF FORCE TO APPELLEE'S RAPE SPECIFICATION.

 

WHETHER AFCCA COMMITTED LEGAL ERROR BY FAILING TO CORRECTLY CONSIDER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES TO APPELLEE'S CHARGED RAPE SPECIFICATION

 

WHETHER AFCCA COMMITTED LEGAL ERROR IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT CONDUCTED ITS FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW BY REFUSING AND FAILING TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE FACT-FINDER AT TRIAL.




Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 14-0696/AF. U.S. v. Saul M. Bookman. CCA 38342. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the addendum to the staff judge advocate's recommendation inaccurately stated that Appellant was convicted of having committed 60 different thefts over the course of a single year that totaled over $30,500, when in fact Appellant actually pleaded guilty to stealing $15,797 in 41 discrete thefts. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED PLAIN AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR BECAUSE IT STATED THAT APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF HAVING COMMITTED 60 THEFTS OVER THE COURSE OF A SINGLE YEAR AND THAT APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY TO STEALING MORE THAN $30,500.

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the convening authority's action is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the same or a different convening authority for a new post-trial recommendation and action.

 

No. 14-0750/AF. U.S. v. Mason W. Mandy. CCA 38227. 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 directed that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals substitute a corrected opinion to correct the obvious clerical error in the opening sentence of its decision by removing the language that Appellant was convicted of one specification of dereliction of duty.




Thursday, December 11, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0074/CG. U.S. v. John C. Riesbeck. CCA 1374. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that the issue of improper member selection was not waived because of the exception contained in Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 912(b)(3) to the timeliness requirement of RCM 912(b)(1). On its face, RCM 912(b)(3) provides an exception to waiver where the objection is made on the basis of an allegation that the convening authority selected members in violation of RCM 502(a)(1) for reasons other than those listed in Article 25(d)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 825(d)(2) (2012): age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. Furthermore, improper member selection can constitute unlawful command influence, an issue that cannot be waived. United States v. Baldwin, 54 M.J. 308, 310 n.2 (C.A.A.F. 2001). Because the exception of RCM 912(b)(3) should have applied, the question remains whether Appellant was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial panel. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WAS APPELLANT DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL PANEL?

 

The decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 866(c) (2012). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 867 (2012), shall apply.




Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0051/AF. U.S. v. Franklin G.U. Cruz. CCA 38296. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that Appellant raises issues not previously considered by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER APPELLANT.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review and consideration of the aforementioned issues under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 866(c)(2012).




Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 14-0773/AF. U.S. v. Jeremiah L. Thompson III. CCA 38269. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR POSSESSION AND RECEIPT OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE SEVERAL DEPICTIONS 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 THE LEGALLY PROTECTED IMAGES CONTRIBUTED TO THE VERDICT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, December 8, 2014

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 14-0783/NA. U.S. v. Marshand A. Woods. CCA 201300153. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING A CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST THE COURT-MARTIAL PRESIDENT, WHO SAID THE "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT" STANDARD IS "ESSENTIAL" TO THE MILITARY'S MISSION?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 15-0011/AF. U.S. v. Joshua K. Plant. CCA 38274. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF GUILTY TO CHARGE V AND ITS SPECIFICATION (CHILD ENDANGERMENT) BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO PROVE APPELLANT'S ALCOHOL USE ALONE AMOUNTED TO CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE THAT ENDANGERED THE WELFARE OF L.P.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 15-0029/AR. U.S. v. Levi A. Keefauver. CCA 20121026. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS APPROPRIATE IN TOTAL.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 15-0059/NA. U.S. v. Darron D. Ward, Jr. CCA 201400021. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ISSUED AN INSTRUCTION THAT LIMITED COURT-MARTIAL MEMBER NOMINATIONS TO PERSONNEL ONLY IN THE PAY-GRADES BETWEEN E-7 AND O-5. THE LOWER COURT FOUND THIS SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF PERSONNEL TO BE ERROR, BUT HARMLESS. SHOULD THIS COURT SET ASIDE APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS BASED ON THE RATIONALE OF UNITED STATES v. KIRKLAND DUE TO THE UNRESOLVED APPEARANCE OF UNFAIRNESS?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions


No. 15-0077/MC. U.S. v. Matthew T. Engler. CCA 201300365. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and the record of trial, the Court notes a number of errors in the post-trial processing of this case and decision of the lower court: (1) the civilian defense counsel advised the staff judge advocate that he would not submit clemency matters, but then submitted clemency matters several weeks after the convening authority took his initial action; (2) the convening authority purported to take a second action after he forwarded the record to the lower court and thereby lost jurisdiction in the case; (3) the convening authority failed to include the clemency matters in the record; (4) the lower court failed to order the government to produce the missing clemency submission; and (5) the lower court found a legal basis for a conclusion of no prejudice in the second action despite that action being a legal nullity. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

CAN A MILITARY APPELLATE COURT USE AN UNLAWFUL CONVENING AUTHORITY'S ACTION TO NEGATE PREJUDICE WHEN TESTING FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING POST-TRIAL CLEMENCY PROCESSING?

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the convening authority's actions are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to an appropriate convening authority for a new recommendation and action. Thereafter, Articles 66 and 67, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 866 and 867 (2012) shall apply.

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 14-0754/AF. U.S. v. Kirkland C. Nettles. CCA 38336. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 15-0116/AR. U.S. v. Derrick L. Hardy. CCA 20120816. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE MILITARY JUDGE TO ACCEPT A PLEA OF GUILTY FOR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER IN THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I DESPITE THE ULTIMATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE AND THE MILITARY JUDGE'S APPLYING THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING RESTRICTION UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, November 20, 2014

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 15-0048/AR. U.S. v. Joshua R. Baker. CCA 20120839. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby 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 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.




Thursday, November 6, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0107/AR. U.S. v. Jessica V. Kimball. CCA 20121002. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that Charge VI alleged a violation of Article 107, vice Article 701.

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 14-0650/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth E. Hagstrom. CCA 20121058. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEAS OF GUILT TO DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF HIS COMMANDER IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 90, UCMJ, WHEN THE ULTIMATE OFFENSES AT ISSUE WERE THE MINOR OFFENSES 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, November 5, 2014

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 14-0744/NA. U.S. v. Allyssa K. Simmermacher. CCA 201300129. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corp Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DESTROYS EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR TRIAL, THE RULES FOR COURTS-MARTIAL REQUIRE THE MILITARY JUDGE TO ABATE THE PROCEEDINGS. HERE, THE GOVERNMENT NEGLIGENTLY DESTROYED THE SOLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR APPELLANT'S CONVICTION PRIOR TO BOTH THE REFERRAL OF CHARGES AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEFENSE COUNSEL. SHOULD THE MILITARY JUDGE HAVE ABATED THE PROCEEDINGS?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

No. 14-0770/AR. U.S. v. Gabriel A. Parra, Sr. CCA 20110920. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that the finding for specification 5, Charge II, as originally numbered, be changed to "Dismissed" to accurately reflect that the specification was dismissed on motion of the government at trial.




Thursday, October 30, 2014

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 15-0039/AR. U.S. v. Adam J. Hall. CCA 20130217. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

* It is directed that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals be corrected to reflect in the opening paragraph that Appellant was convicted of two specifications of wrongful distribution of a controlled substance in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 912a (2006), vice Article 112, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 912 (2006).




Thursday, October 23, 2014

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 14-0656/AR. U.S. v. Dana P. BLOUIN. CCA 20121135. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision for the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEAS OF GUILTY TO THE SPECIFICATION OF THE CHARGE WHERE PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 4 DEMONSTRATED THAT THE IMAGES POSSESSED WERE NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0660/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. BUDKA. CCA 20120435. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLE OF PARTY PRESENTATION WHEN IT SUMMARILY AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE AFTER THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT THE FACTUAL PREDICATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WAS NOT MET.

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II-AGGRAVATED ASSAULT-WHERE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS TO QUESTION THAT THE FORCE USED WAS A MEANS LIKELY TO PRODUCE DEATH OR GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 14-0792/AR. U.S. v. Collin J. CARTER. CCA 2012 1046. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY PREVENTING DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM PRESENTING FACTS OF APPELLANT'S UNLAWFUL PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT AS MITIGATION EVIDENCE AT SENTENCING.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, October 20, 2014

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 15-0112/AR. U.S. v. Tahir L. MUWWAKKIL. CCA 20140536. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 862, and a supporting brief were filed under Rule 22, together with a motion to stay the proceedings on this 20th day of October, 2014, on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF BOTH THE FEDERAL JENCKS ACT (18 U.S.C. 3500) AND RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 914.

 

II. WHETHER THE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN ITS DEFERENCE TO THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, AS SHE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CASE, AND INSTEAD MADE A PRESUMPTION OF HARM BEFORE ORDERING AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY. SEE, e.g., KILLIAN v. UNITED STATES, 368 U.S. 231 (1961).

 

On consideration thereof, it is ordered that the motion to stay proceedings is hereby granted. Appellee will file an answer to the certified issues under Rule 22(b)(1) on or before October 30, 2014.




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