PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 02-0915/AF. U.S. v. Marsahn D. WILSON. CCA 34621.
No. 02-0918/MC. U.S. v. Anthony L. BROWN. CCA 200101600.
No. 02-0928/MC. U.S. v. Adam BOESE. CCA 200102161.
No. 03-0001/MC. U.S. v. David E. CASTILE. CCA 200200649.
No. 03-0013/AF. U.S. v. Christopher R. RYAN. CCA S30100.
No. 03-0014/AR. U.S. v. John A. BLECHA III. CCA 20020306.
No. 03-0021/AF. U.S. v. Michael J. CRAWFORD. CCA 34908.
No. 03-0032/AR. U.S. v. James H. COLTON. CCA 20010605.
No. 03-0039/AF. U.S. v. Daniel S. JOHNSTON. CCA 35132.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0111/AR. U.S. v. Micah D. LERCH. CCA 9701764.
No. 03-0112/AR. U.S. v. Jason G. SCOTT. CCA 20010776.
No. 03-0113/AR. U.S. v. Shan L. PHOENIX Jr. CCA 20010977.
No. 03-0114/AF. U.S. v. Nikolas O. PABON. CCA 35175.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-038
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0110/AF. U.S. v. John E. LEVEILLE. CCA 35063.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0556/AF. U.S. v. Kimberly A. LALIBERTE. CCA 34745. Appellant's motion to withdraw from appellate review granted.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 03-8001/AR. United States, appellee, v. Charles V. RICARD, appellant. CCA 20021026. Writ-appeal petition denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 02-0828/AR. U.S. v. Nicky A. THOMPSON. CCA 9600798. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on further review, we believe that our decision on said petition will be materially assisted by a specific answer to the issues assigned by appellate defense counsel. Accordingly, it is ordered that within 30 days of the date of this order appellee will file an answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review addressing the issues raised by appellate defense counsel. Appellant will then have 10 days in which to file a reply. See Rule 21(c)(2), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
No. 02-0946/AR. U.S. v. Larry A. FRAKE. CCA 9900915. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 7, 2002; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.
No. 03-6002/AR. U.S. v. Keith R. BREVARD Sr. CCA 20020711. On consideration of the petition for grant of review filed by counsel for the appellant on November 25, 2002, under Rule 19(a)(5)(B), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and docketed under Docket Number 03-0105, and it now appearing that said petition is in fact a petition for grant of 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 USC § 862, it is ordered that Docket Number 03-6002/AR be forthwith assigned to this case; that Docket
Number 03-0105/AR be removed from this case and reassigned in due course to an appropriate newly filed petition; that the Clerk’s office and counsel for both parties herein promptly ensure that the new docket number assigned to this case be noted on all pleadings filed to date in this matter; and that appellee shall file an answer in accordance with Rule 21(c)(1).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-037
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0716/MC. U.S. v. Michael L. MASSEY. CCA 200100939. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issues I and III, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 99-0307/AR. U.S. v. Robert L. MITCHELL Jr. CCA 9601800. Review granted on the following issue:
No. 02-0884/AF. U.S. v. Phillip C. DORMAN. CCA 34237. Review granted on the following issue:
DEFENSE COUNSEL TO VIOLATE THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE BEFORE BEING GRANTED SUCH ACCESS TO THE FILE AND BY ALSO FAILING TO CONSIDER THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER HER FILE UNDER HER STATE BAR RULES.
No. 02-0525/AF. U.S. v. Christopher M. CRAZE. CCA 34500. On consideration of appellant's motion to add additional issue to supplement to petition for grant of review and the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that the motion is granted; and, that the petition is denied. [See also INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0105/MC. U.S. v. Stephen B. WAITE. CCA 9900133.
No. 03-0108/MC. U.S. v. William H. BETHEL. CCA 200200356.
No. 03-0109/AF. U.S. v. Ronald C. ROBERTS. CCA 34236.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0646/AR. U.S. v. John A. WEISBECK. CCA 9502215. Appellee's motion to file answer to supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
No. 02-0525/AF. U.S. v. Christopher M. CRAZE. CCA 34500. [See also PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED this date.]
No. 02-0885/AF. U.S. v. Stephanie R. TRAUM. CCA 34225. Appellee's motion to file answer brief in excess of fifty pages granted and appellant's motion for an extension of time to file reply brief granted to December 16 2002.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-036
Monday, November 25, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0103/AR. U.S. v. Eddie O. WILLIAMS III. CCA 20001000.
No. 03-0104/AR. U.S. v. Matthew F. WALTERS. CCA 20010526.
No. 03-0105/AR. U.S. v. Keith R. BREVARD Sr. CCA 20020711.
No. 03-0106/AF. U.S. v. Christopher D. WIEST. CCA 33964.
No. 03-0107/AF. U.S. v. Robert J. GLICK. CCA 35184.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-035
Friday, November 22, 2002
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0217/AR. U.S. v. Antuana D. CROMARTIE. CCA 9900426. On further consideration of the granted issues (57 M.J. 111), in light of United States v. Gutierrez, 57 M.J. 148 (2002), and RCM 1106(f)(6), we note that there was no objection to the staff judge advocate’s recommendation, and we hold that there was no plain error. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 02-0635/AR. U.S. v. Chad A. JACKSON. CCA 9900566.
No. 02-0681/MC. U.S. v. Arthur E. BRELAND. CCA 200100577.
No. 02-0767/AF. U.S. v. John M. VINES, III. CCA 34437.
No. 02-0783/AR. U.S. v. Riley D. KENT. CCA 20000184.
No. 02-0797/AF. U.S. v. Ronald L. THOMPSON Jr. CCA S29928.
No. 02-0853/AR. U.S. v. Travis L. GRIFFIN. CCA 20010193.
No. 02-0867/AF. U.S. v. Randy D. EARLS. CCA S29959.
No. 02-0870/AR. U.S. v. Phillip A. SPIGHT. CCA 20000333.
No. 02-0872/AF. U.S. v. Shawn T. OSHIELDS. CCA 34568.
No. 02-0898/NA. U.S. v. William F. POOLE. CCA 200200492.
No. 02-0939/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas P. MAYNARD. CCA 34985.
No. 02-0948/MC. U.S. v. Nathan O. JAMES. CCA 200001750.
No. 02-0952/AF. U.S. v. Russell L. MACLEAN. CCA 35025.
No. 03-0006/AF. U.S. v. Frederick C. RILES. CCA S30130.
No. 03-0026/NA. U.S. v. Dwayne E. HAASTRUP. CCA 200101969.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0102/AR. U.S. v. Dearco D. MCCRAY. CCA 20010306.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 02-0474/AF. U.S. v. Terry MCCOLLUM. CCA 34324. On further consideration of the granted issues (57 M.J. 153-154), it is ordered that counsel representing the appellant shall file an additional brief within 20 days of the date of this order on the following issue specified by the Court:
No. 02-0934/NA. U.S. v. Jermaine D. BLACKWELL. CCA 200100076. Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
No. 03-0053/MC. U.S. v. Rosemary PALFY. CCA 200001906. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 23, 2002.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-034
Thursday, November 21, 2002
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 01-0615/AF. U.S. v. Josh R. LEAVITT. CCA 33681. On further consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Campbell, 57 M.J. 134 (2002), remand is necessary to allow the Court of Criminal Appeals to determine whether the report appellant seeks exists. If such a report exists, the court shall order it produced and issue any protective orders necessary to protect its confidentiality. The court shall then review the report, attach it to the record, and determine its relevance to appellant’s assignments of error. If an additional factual inquiry is necessary, that court shall first order a DuBay* hearing. If relevant information is disclosed, the court will reconsider appellant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct pursuant to Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Accordingly, it is ordered that 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 further consideration in light of Campbell, supra. Thereafter, the provisions of Article 67, UCMJ, shall apply.
* United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967).
No. 02-0573/MC. U.S. v.
Kevin L. DEROUSSE. CCA 200001110. On consideration of the petition
for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57
M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue II, but granted
as to Issue I. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court
below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is
warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is
ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the
Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal
Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter,
Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0708/MC. U.S. v. Cody R. KORFHAGE. CCA 200200146. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0709/MC. U.S. v. Michael A. KRISHER Jr. CCA 200200151. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0722/MC. U.S. v. Jeremy M. MONZINGO. CCA 200102153. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0573/MC. U.S. v. Kevin L. DEROUSSE. CCA 200001110. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0708/MC. U.S. v. Cody R. KORFHAGE. CCA 200200146. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0709/MC. U.S. v. Michael A. KRISHER Jr. CCA 200200151. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0722/MC. U.S. v. Jeremy M. MONZINGO. CCA 200102153. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 02-0843/AR. U.S. v. Miguel A. RODRIGUEZ. CCA 9900318.
No. 02-0908/AR. U.S. v. William B. ANDREWS, Jr. CCA 20000496.
No. 02-0911/AR. U.S. v. Michael W. ELVERUM. CCA 20010864.
No. 02-0929/AR. U.S. v. Randall J. POLLARD III. CCA 20010357.
No. 02-0942/AR. U.S. v. John D. MANDIGO. CCA 9900597.
No. 02-0953/AR. U.S. v. Matthew E. RICHARDS. CCA 20010588.
No. 02-0954/AR. U.S. v. Damian V. REINHOLD. CCA 20010777.
No. 03-0031/AR. U.S. v. Erik S. SMITH. CCA 20010539.
No. 03-0052/AR. U.S. v. Jorge A. AGUILAR. CCA 20010598.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0100/AR. U.S. v. Lionell DOMINICCI-VEGA. CCA 20010979.
No. 03-0101/MC. U.S. v. Ryan V. MEYERS. CCA 200100973.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0045/AR. U.S. v. Insley D. EVANS. CCA 20001106. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 20, 2002.
No. 03-0048/AR. U.S. v. Jeremy S. TUBBS. CCA 9800889. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 20, 2002.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-033
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0574/MC. U.S. v. Joseph L. HEIN. CCA 200101713. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0691/MC. U.S. v. Troy A. DOUGLAS. CCA 200200135. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0734/MC. U.S. v. Ralph J. REED. CCA 200101638. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0735/MC. U.S. v. Gregory D. ROGERS. CCA 200200158. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0574/MC. U.S. v. Joseph L. HEIN. CCA 200101713. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0691/MC. U.S. v. Troy A. DOUGLAS. CCA 200200135. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0734/MC. U.S. v. Ralph J. REED. CCA 200101638. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0735/MC. U.S. v. Gregory D. ROGERS. CCA 200200158. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0092/AR. U.S. v. Daniel C. HAGUE-CAMPBELL. CCA 20000735.
No. 03-0093/AR. U.S. v. Javier SANTOS. CCA 9900559.
No. 03-0094/AR. U.S. v. Rachel WELLINGTON. CCA 20011024.
No. 03-0095/AR. U.S. v. Reynaldo DOMINGUEZ III. CCA 20010975.
No. 03-0096/AR. U.S. v. Julio R. JARAMILLO. CCA 20000604.
No. 03-0097/NA. U.S. v. John G. KLEINER. CCA 200000816.
No. 03-0098/MC. U.S. v. Donald A. HOY. CCA 200201262.
No. 03-0099/MC. U.S. v. Branden R. NABORS. CCA 200102034.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 02-0659/NA. U.S. v. Rene A. TRUJILLO. CCA 91-00502. Appellant's fourth motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-032
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0678/MC. U.S. v. Dustin R. BERG. CCA 200200162. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0701/MC. U.S. v. Randy J. HENDERSON. CCA 200102094. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
No. 02-0702/MC. U.S. v. Seth HENSLEY. CCA 200200096. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in light of United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002), said petition is hereby denied as to Issue I, but granted as to Issue II. We conclude that a remand is necessary so that the court below can exercise its authority under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), to determine whether relief is warranted, and if so, what relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration in light of Tardif, supra. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225-28 (2002).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0678/MC. U.S. v. Dustin R. BERG. CCA 200200162. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0701/MC. U.S. v. Randy J. HENDERSON. CCA 200102094. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0702/MC. U.S. v. Seth HENSLEY. CCA 200200096. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 02-0784/AR. U.S. v. Daniel J. SAUNDERS III. CCA 9900899. Review granted on the following issue:
No. 02-0888/MC. U.S. v. Michael P. JAMROG. CCA 20001663. Appellant's motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0088/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy M. JOHNSON. CCA 200200504.
No. 03-0089/NA. U.S. v. Christian W. CAUDLE. CCA 200201259.
No. 03-0090/NA. U.S. v. William V. LILLICH. CCA 200101237.
No. 03-0091/MC. U.S. v. Justin W. DOUGHMAN. CCA 200200413.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 00-0559/AF. U.S. v. David E. GILLEY. CCA 32877. Appellant's motion to submit documents and motion to submit corrected pages granted.
No. 02-0921/AR. U.S. v. John E. FARRISH. CCA 9601617. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted but only up to and including December 5, 2002; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-031
Monday, November 18, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 02-0882/AR. U.S. v. Gilbert J. RODRIGUEZ, Jr. CCA 20001103.
No. 02-0909/AR. U.S. v. Timothy L. ADAMS. CCA 20001094.
No. 02-0917/MC. U.S. v. Edwin D. KINDER. CCA 200102114.
No. 02-0922/AR. U.S. v. Michael RODRIGUEZ. CCA 20010256.
No. 02-0924/AR. U.S. v. Joel A. DIAZ. CCA 20020217.
No. 02-0927/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy M. JONES. CCA 200200923.
No. 02-0932/MC. U.S. v. Hector C. MARTINEZ. CCA 200000641.
No. 02-0933/MC. U.S. v. David J. RIMEL. CCA 200200038.
No. 02-0936/AR. U.S. v. Thomas E. HODGE Jr. CCA 20010010.
No. 02-0950/AF. U.S. v. David E. BRACEY. CCA 35060.
No. 02-0956/AF. U.S. v. James A. POWERS Jr. CCA S29998.
No. 02-0957/AF. U.S. v. Edward CONTRERAS. CCA 34718.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0086/AR. U.S. v. Stanley E. EDMOND. CCA 9900904.
No. 03-0087/AR. U.S. v. Anthony D. KENNEDY. CCA 20000227.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-030
Friday, November 15, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0082/AR. U.S. v. Joviaire YARBRO. CCA 20010519.
No. 03-0083/NA. U.S. v. James E. MOORE. CCA 9900594.
No. 03-0084/MC. U.S. v. John D. SHIFFLETT. CCA 200201492.
No. 03-0085/AF. U.S. v. Christopher B. DURBIN. CCA S30104.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 00-8019/NA. United States, respondent, v. Samuel E. TOOTLE, II, petitioner. CCA 98-1945. Appellant's motion for leave to file petition for extraordinary relief out of time denied.
No. 02-0603/AR. U.S. v. Michael A. PAULING. CCA 9700685. On consideration of the supplement to the petition for grant of review filed, appellee shall file an answer to the supplement on or before December 16, 2002.
No. 02-0865/MC. U.S. v. Enrique BARRAZAMARTINEZ. CCA 200101575. Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted up to and including December 12, 2002; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.
No. 03-0003/MC. U.S. v. Darren P. LACHENEY. CCA 200101516. Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
No. 03-0018/AR. U.S. v. James P. BORDEAUX. CCA 9901016. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2002.
No. 03-0020/AR. U.S. v. Doerian H. JOHNSON. CCA 9801235. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2002.
No. 03-0022/AF. U.S. v. Julian LATORRE. CCA 34670. Motion filed by Major Patricia A. McHugh to withdraw as appellate counsel granted and appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2002.
No. 03-0025/AR. U.S. v. Kenji M. MAPES. CCA 9900592. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2002.
No. 03-0062/AR. U.S. v. Set J. RICO. CCA 20000596. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 30, 2002.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-029
Thursday, November 14, 2002
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 00-0617/CG. U.S. v. William S. BENEDICT. CCA 1083. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, on further review, said petition is hereby granted and the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, on further review, is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 01-0647/AF. U.S. v. Shannon R. BULLMAN. CCA 34403. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, on further review, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, on further review, is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 00-0617/CG. U.S. v. William S. BENEDICT. CCA 1083. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 01-0647/AF. U.S. v. Shannon R. BULLMAN. CCA 34403. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0080/MC. U.S. v. Peter QUINTERO, Jr. CCA 200200586.
No. 03-0081/NA. U.S. v. Luther A. GRANT. CCA 200201137.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 02-0876/AR. U.S. v. Dennis MCMAHON. CCA 9901020. Appellant's motion to attach granted.
No. 02-0938/AF. U.S. v. Andrew J. BROZZO. CCA 34542. Appellant's motion to submit documents denied.
No. 03-0015/AR. U.S. v. Jeremy L. BRITTENUM. CCA 9800602. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to December 13, 2002.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-028
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
HEARINGS
No. 02-0148/AF. U.S. v. Winchester ROBINSON, Jr. CCA 33925.
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0524/AR. U.S. v. Taori E. RANSOM. CCA 9800994. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is hereby granted and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 96-1198/AF. U.S. v. Edward L. MITCHELL. CCA 31421. Review granted on the following issues:
II. WHETHER THE SERVICE COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, WHEN IT ORDERED CONDITIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF APPELLANT'S SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT.
III. WHETHER THE SERVICE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY INVESTIGATING FACTS FROM OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND THEN SUPPLEMENTING THE RECORD ON REMAND WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF ITS INTENT TO DO SO AND WITHOUT PROVIDING THE PARTIES WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND BEFORE IT INCORPORATED THOSE ADDITIONAL FACTS INTO ITS OPINION ON REMAND.
IV. WHETHER THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IN THIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S LAST REMAND ORDER TO THE COURT BELOW.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 02-0721/MC. U.S. v. Levi B. MOLKENTIN. CCA 200200115.
No. 02-0831/AR. U.S. v. Joe L. MCLAURIN Jr. CCA 20010225.
No. 02-0832/AR. U.S. v. Demetrius M. JAMES. CCA 9900568.
No. 02-0834/NA. U.S. v. Eddie P. HODGES. CCA 200001236.
No. 02-0855/AR. U.S. v. Sean T. JOHNSON. CCA 9901042.
No. 02-0856/AF. U.S. v. Benjamin BENAVIDES. CCA 34454.
No. 02-0861/AR. U.S. v. Andrew J. NEAL. CCA 20000023.
No. 02-0901/AF. U.S. v. Rafael L. ELLISON. CCA S30072.
No. 02-0925/AR. U.S. v. Randy L. GRAHAM. CCA 20000725.
No. 02-0930/AR. U.S. v. Jinnifer L. HART. CCA 20020173.
No. 02-0935/MC. U.S. v. James R. HEALIS. CCA 200100565.
No. 03-0004/AF. U.S. v. Jason D. KREMHELMER. CCA 34786.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0079/AR. U.S. v. Carlos M. CORDOVA. CCA 20010936.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-027
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0075/AR. U.S. v. Nathaniel L. EDWARDS, III. CCA 20020021.
No. 03-0076/AR. U.S. v. Troy A. CARTER. CCA 9901174.
No. 03-0077/AR. U.S. v. Eric L. WOMER. CCA 20010851.
No. 03-0078/MC. U.S. v. Elizabeth A. RISER. CCA 200200013.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-026
Friday, November 08, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0070/AF. U.S. v. Wesley R. LAWRENCE. CCA 34600.
No. 03-0071/AF. U.S. v. Joseph W. LEE. CCA S29894.
No. 03-0072/AF. U.S. v. Joshua P. LOVETT. CCA 33947.
No. 03-0073/AF. U.S. v. Terence E. ROBERTSON. CCA 34548.
No. 03-0074/AF. U.S. v. Vincent J. ROMERO. CCA 34396.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0008/AR. U.S. v. Juan Y. BOWIE. CCA 20010540. Appellant's motion to attach granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-025
Thursday, November 07, 2002
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 02-0135/CG. U.S. v. Joseph P. REDLINSKI. CCA 1116. Appellee's motion to submit supplemental pleading granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-024
Wednesday, November 06, 2002
HEARINGS
No. 02-0243/AR. U.S. v. Judy A. HALL. CCA 9901124.
No. 02-0386/AF. U.S. v. Phillip P. KING Jr. CCA 34155.
No. 02-0443/AR. U.S. v. Scott D. GIBSON. CCA 9900573.
No. 02-0474/AF. U.S. v. Terry MCCOLLUM. CCA 34324.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-023
Tuesday, November 05, 2002
HEARINGS
No. 02-0135/CG. U.S. v. Joseph P. REDLINSKI. CCA 1116.
No. 02-0231/AF. U.S. v. Bobby HIBBARD. CCA 34371.
No. 02-0312/AF. U.S. v. Donald B. WARDLE. CCA 34140.
No. 98-0146/AF. U.S. v. Leslie D. RILEY. CCA 32183.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0068/AR. U.S. v. Robert L. KORNEGAY Jr. CCA 20010078.
No. 03-0069/AR. U.S. v. Joseph J. MAZZULLO. CCA 20000629.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No. 03-8001/AR. United States, appellee, v. Charles V. RICARD, appellant. CCA 20021026. Writ-appeal petition for review of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on October 29, 2002 and placed on the docket this date.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 00-0327/NA. U.S. v. Miguel E. INONG. CCA 9801667. Appellant's motion to attach granted.
No. 02-0931/AR. U.S. v. David H. DONALDSON. CCA 9900544. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted but only up to and including November 20, 2002; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 01-0590/NA. U.S. v. Timothy J. ELLIS. CCA 98-0729.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 03-022
Monday, November 04, 2002
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0066/AR. U.S. v. Ernest R. MARTIN. CCA 20020029.
No. 03-0067/NA. U.S. v. Naytos C. DAVIS. CCA 200001233.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 02-0948/MC. U.S. v. Nathan O. JAMES. CCA 200001750. Appellant's motion to attach granted.