UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-141

Friday, April 28, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 02-0048/AF.  U.S. v. James A. SILLS.  CCA 34323.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 03-0141/AF.  U.S. v. Clifford MASON.  CCA 34677.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 06-0035/AR.  U.S. v. Samuel J. SOTO.  CCA 20020450.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 06-0262/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew T. DEVAUX.  CCA 20021275.  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 the Government’s concession, said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER, AS TO SPECIFICATION 2 OF THE CHARGE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT UNLAWFULLY BATTERED A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 16 BY STRIKING THE CHILD ON THE BUTTOCKS WITH HIS HAND.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to the words “hand and” in Specification 2 of the Charge, but is affirmed in all other respects.  The finding of guilty as to those two words is set aside and that portion of Specification 2 is dismissed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 06-0285/AF.  U.S. v. John D. FREDENBURG.  CCA 35880.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United State Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the court of criminal appeals commented in its opinion that Appellant had been convicted, inter alia, of possession of methamphetamine.  In fact, as the court-martial promulgating order accurately reflects, the Government withdrew that offense.  The lower court then excepted the words “on divers occasions” from the finding of guilty of Charge III, Specification 1, wrongful possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute, and reassessed the sentence based on the latter trial error.

 

Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE WHERE THAT COURT ERRONEOUSLY COMMENTED THAT APPELLANT HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE, WHEN IN FACT THAT OFFENSE HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN.

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to the “approved findings, as modified” and reversed as to sentence.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the court of criminal appeals.  That court may either reassess the sentence or order a rehearing.  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000) shall apply.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 02-0048/AF.  U.S. v. James A. SILLS.  CCA 34323.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 03-0141/AF.  U.S. v. Clifford MASON.  CCA 34677.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 06-0035/AR.  U.S. v. Samuel J. SOTO.  CCA 20020450.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 06-0262/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew T. DEVAUX.  CCA 20021275.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 06-0285/AF.  U.S. v. John D. FREDENBURG.  CCA 35880.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0069/NA.  U.S. v. Cleveland L. LAWRENCE.  CCA 200500618.

No. 06-0126/NA.  U.S. v. Ralph D. MCMILLAN.  CCA 9900855.

No. 06-0268/AF.  U.S. v. Alfredo SANTIAGO, Jr.  CCA S30544.

No. 06-0277/AR.  U.S. v. Jose F. MACIEL, Jr.  CCA 20020979.1/

No. 06-0420/AF.  U.S. v. Jose L. LOMELI.  CCA 36168.

No. 06-0485/AR.  U.S. v. Jamie D. DEAN.  CCA 20051169.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0563/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy C. SIVITS.  CCA 20040551.

No. 06-0564/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon B. WOODARD.  CCA 20050548.

No. 06-0565/AF.  U.S. v. Brian M. BAIRD.  CCA 35950.

No. 06-0566/AF.  U.S. v. Eric A. MARQUES.  CCA 35980.

No. 06-0567/AF.  U.S. v. David A. LEEDY.  CCA 35939.

No. 06-0568/AF.  U.S. v. Marcus R. KING.  CCA 36039.

No. 06-0569/AF.  U.S. v. George HOFELE.  CCA 36003.

No. 06-0570/AF.  U.S. v. Robert W. HENRY.  CCA S30787.

No. 06-0571/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher S. BARRETT.  CCA 35790.

No. 06-0572/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua D. FLETCHER.  CCA 35996.

No. 06-0573/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. WILLIAMS, Jr.  CCA 36281.

No. 06-0574/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph A. HEGGS.  CCA 20030762.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0551/MC.  U.S. v. Justin M. LEWIS.  CCA 200200089.  Motion for leave to enter an appearance as Amicus Curiae by a law student attending the George Washington University School of Law granted.

 

No. 06-0365/AF.  U.S. v. Ryan M. METZ.  CCA 35915.  Appellant's motion to attach docuemnts granted.

 

No. 06-0455/AR.  U.S. v. Gerard T. KARYEAH.  CCA 20010779.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 26, 2006.

____________

 

1/  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect a guilty plea and finding to Charge V.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-140

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0372/MC.  U.S. v. Jeremy D. THOMPSON.  CCA 200101956.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED TO HIM BECAUSE, DUE TO THE LOWER COURT'S ERROR, THE LOWER COURT DID NOT PERFORM ANY ACTUAL ARTICLE 66(C), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, REVIEW UNTIL 1409 DAYS AFTER APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 06-0001/AR.  U.S. v. David L. ECKARD.  CCA 20010870.  Review granted on the following issue personally asserted by Appellant:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE MR. [M], WHO TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON DNA, HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE MADE SEVERAL MISTAKES IN HIS HANDLING OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND HAS MADE FALSE ENTRIES IN REPORTS FROM THE CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY OF THE ARMY CID AT FT. GORDON.

 

     No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 06-0170/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher L. ARGUELLEZ.  CCA 20030850.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE DILATORY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF APPELLANT'S CASE VIOLATES HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0300/AF.  U.S. v. Scott J. SHAFFER.  CCA S30557.

No. 06-0349/AF.  U.S. v. Eric D. BOGACKI.  CCA S30590.

No. 06-0400/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher L. LOFLIN.  CCA S30793.

No. 06-0401/AF.  U.S. v. John W. MORALES.  CCA 36164.

No. 06-0402/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon L. TONER.  CCA 35080.

No. 06-0405/AF.  U.S. v. Larry R. LANDON, Jr.  CCA 35831.

No. 06-0407/AF.  U.S. v. Seth A. KIRKPATRICK.  CCA S30934.

No. 06-0463/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon L. LAYFIELD.  CCA 36169.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0555/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon T. ZAREMSKI.  CCA 20051455.

No. 06-0556/NA.  U.S. v. Randall L. SCHUYLER.  CCA 200200620.

No. 06-0557/AF.  U.S. v. Ricky A. COUNCIL.  CCA S30717.

No. 06-0558/AF.  U.S. v. Antonio C. COYL.  CCA S30677.

No. 06-0559/AF.  U.S. v. Brian C. HILLS.  CCA 35985.

No. 06-0560/AF.  U.S. v. Scott C. LOVETT.  CCA S30796.

No. 06-0561/AF.  U.S. v. Carl D. WILLIAMS.  CCA S30708.

No. 06-0562/AF.  U.S. v. Jeffrey MCRAE.  CCA 36052.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8012/NA.  Hawan T. CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent.  CCA 200400093.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, Petitioner’s motion to attach and motion for a stay of proceedings, Petitioner’s motion to attach is granted; Petitioner’s motion for a stay of proceedings is denied; and the petition for extraordinary relief is denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0510/AF.  U.S. v. Samuel R. BLEVINS.  CCA 35630.  Appellant's motion to submit additional assignments of error out of time, filed on March 15, 2006, motion to submit additional documents, filed on March 22, 2006, motion to submit documents, filed on March 31, 2006, and motion to submit supplement to petition, filed on April 3, 2006, are granted.

 

No. 06-0322/AR.  U.S. v. Eric R. HAMMOND.  CCA 20020408.  Appellant's motion for decision on briefs and motion to expedite case are denied without prejudice to Appellant’s right to renew the motions if his petition for grant of review is granted.

 

No. 06-0439/AF.  U.S. v. Jess M. DAVIS.  CCA 35932.  Appellant's motion to attach document granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-139

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0728/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew A. SALTER.  CCA 20031036.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted on the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT SHOULD STAND CONVICTED OF SEPARATE OFFENSES OF WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION IN SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE IV, WHERE THE BOTH ITEMS WERE TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.

 

Under the circumstances of this case, where the providence inquiry revealed that both items alleged in Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge IV were taken at the same time and place, there is only one offense.  See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, pt. IV, para. 46.c.(1)(h)(ii) (2005 ed.).  Therefore, the Court affirms a finding of guilty to a consolidated specification to wrongful appropriation as follows:

In that Private (E2) Matthew Salter, U.S. Army, did at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 11 April 2003, wrongfully appropriate a pair of AN PVS-7B Night Vision Goggles, military property of a value of about $2,695, and an M-16 Bayonet, Tag # 288, military property of a value less than $500, military property of the United States, the property of the U.S. Army.

 

Because the underlying misconduct has not changed, the Court is satisfied that Appellant suffered no prejudice as to his sentence.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge I and its specifications, Charge II and its specifications, Charge III and its specification, and Charge IV and its specifications (as consolidated), and the sentence is affirmed.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0694/NA.  U.S. v. Franklin OWENS.  CCA 200100297.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT HAS BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT TO TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW BY HAVING HIS CASE PENDING POST-TRIAL REVIEW FOR 1967 DAYS, INCLUDING 543 DAYS IN PANEL WITH THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

 

     No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0721/AR.  U.S. v. Jose F. SIERRA, Jr.  CCA 20020438.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER THE DILATORY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF THE INSTANT CASE WARRANTS RELIEF GIVEN THAT IT TOOK APPROXIMATELY 9 MONTHS (279 DAYS) FOR THE CONVENING AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION ON A 96-PAGE RECORD OF TRIAL.

 

     No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0099/MC.  U.S. v. John A. DEGRACIA.  CCA 200401251.

No. 06-0236/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua S. FELICE.  CCA 20050422.

No. 06-0252/AR.  U.S. v. Edward S. LEE.  CCA 20020497.

No. 06-0289/NA.  U.S. v. Isreal D. HARVEY.  CCA 200401281.

No. 06-0309/AR.  U.S. v. Jason O. COOK.  CCA 20030434.

No. 06-0338/AR.  U.S. v. David A. MORTON.  CCA 20050558.

No. 06-0377/AR.  U.S. v. Jace D. SCHNABL.  CCA 20050768.

No. 06-0379/AR.  U.S. v. Dmitri R. HOLLIS.  CCA 20041086.

No. 06-0384/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy E. TAYLOR.  CCA 20050743.

No. 06-0387/AR.  U.S. v. Collis J. HEARN.  CCA 20021313.

No. 06-0390/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas B. TAYLOR.  CCA 20050924.

No. 06-0394/AR.  U.S. v. Sergio A. GONZALEZMONZON.  CCA 20050683.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0450/AR.  U.S. v. Jose J. GONZALES.  CCA 20010690.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 24, 2006.

 

No. 06-0502/AF.  U.S. v. Doncosta E. SEAWELL.  CCA 35531.  Appellant's motion to file petition for grant of review out of time granted.  Appellant will file a supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before May 25, 2006.  Appellee may file an answer within thirty days thereafter.

 


 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-138

Monday, April 24, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0647/NA.  U.S. v. Brendan C. FORNEY.  CCA 200200462.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER APPELLANT'S ARTICLE 133 CONVICTION CAN BE SUSTAINED EVEN THOUGH HE PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND THE SPECIFICATION ON WHICH HE WAS TRIED EXPRESSLY RESTED ON A STATUTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

II.  WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SENTENCE RELIEF BECAUSE OF UNJUSTIFIED POST-TRIAL DELAY.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.

 

No. 05-0779/MC.  U.S. v. Jermaine M. CLAY.  CCA 200101952.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST COLONEL [J], A MEMBER DETAILED TO THE COURT-MARTIAL PANEL, WHO DEMONSTRATED A DRACONIAN AND INELASTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD SENTENCING.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0537/AR.  U.S. v. Benjamin J. CLARK.  CCA 20050878.

No. 06-0538/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph E. DOWDY.  CCA 20041112.

No. 06-0539/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher L. MOORE.  CCA 20050358.

No. 06-0540/NA.  U.S. v. Stephen T. JONES.  CCA 200401343.

No. 06-0541/MC.  U.S. v. Erick G. GOMEZ.  CCA 200500998.

No. 06-0542/AF.  U.S. v. Aaron K. BLACKMAN.  CCA 35862.

No. 06-0543/AF.  U.S. v. Dwayne C. DENNIS.  CCA 36132.

No. 06-0544/AF.  U.S. v. Bennett J. FOX.  CCA 35912.

No. 06-0545/AF.  U.S. v. William B. HALEY.  CCA 35791.

No. 06-0546/AF.  U.S. v. Ginny L. KLEINHANS.  CCA 36157.

No. 06-0547/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick L. LINENBERGER II.  CCA 35904.

No. 06-0548/AF.  U.S. v. Rhoderic J. MENDOZA.  CCA 36214.

No. 06-0549/AF.  U.S. v. Antwon L. OWENS.  CCA S30715.

No. 06-0550/AF.  U.S. v. Josetta J. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA S30697.

No. 06-0551/AF.  U.S. v. Andrew P.L. ROULEAU.  CCA S30568.

No. 06-0552/AF.  U.S. v. Louise J. SMITH.  CCA S30859.

No. 06-0553/AF.  U.S. v. Gerardo R. SIMON, Jr.  CCA S30886.

No. 06-0554/AF.  U.S. v. James R. SHANNON.  CCA 35042.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0442/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher P. MOFFEIT.  CCA 35159.

No. 05-0157/NA.  U.S. v. Ivor G. LUKE.  CCA 200000481.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-137

Friday, April 21, 2006

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0275/MC.  U.S. v. Cameron D. BOLES.  CCA 200102155.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file petition for grant of review out of time granted and Appellee's motion to dismiss petition for grant of review denied.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 05-0004/AR.  U.S. v. Kimberly E. DOBSON.  CCA 20000098.

No. 05-0271/NA.  U.S. v. Michael J. POLITTE.  CCA 200401261.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-136

Thursday, April 20, 2006

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 03-0086/AR.  U.S. v. Stanley E. EDMOND.  CCA 9900904.1/

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0121/MC.  U.S. v. Donald G. HODGE.  CCA 200201732.

No. 06-0240/AR.  U.S. v. Derrick L. ARNOLD.  CCA 20020659.

No. 06-0317/AR.  U.S. v. Robert OLIVARES, Jr.  CCA 20040225.

No. 06-0347/AR.  U.S. v. Shane R. YOUMANS.  CCA 20050248.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 06-0408/NA.  U.S. v. Leonard Y. DURAN.  CCA 200000781.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss petition for grant of review granted.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0535/MC.  U.S. v. Michael A. DEANE.  CCA 200501511.

No. 06-0536/MC.  U.S. v. John W. LEGER II.  CCA 200401098.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0086/AR.  U.S. v. Stanley E. EDMOND.  CCA 9900904.  Motion filed by the National Institute of Military Justice for leave to correct errata and Appellant’s motion to correct errata are granted.

 

No. 06-0069/NA.  U.S. v. Cleveland L. LAWRENCE.  CCA 200500618.  Appellant's motions to attach filed January 17, 2006 and March 24, 2006, are granted.

 

No. 06-0427/AR.  U.S. v. Darrell L. LAWRENCE.  CCA 20030471.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 18, 2006.

 

No. 06-0434/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph F. PIOTROWSKI.  CCA 20010721.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 18, 2006.

 

No. 06-0435/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew C. THOMPSON.  CCA 20031083.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 18, 2006.

 

No. 06-0437/AR.  U.S. v. Michael T. SANDERS.  CCA 20020734.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 18, 2006.

 

No. 06-0438/AR.  U.S. v. Steven M. BAILEY.  CCA 20021218.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 19, 2006.

 

No. 06-8006/AR.  Dwight J. LOVING, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent.  Respondent's motion to attach Certificate of Compliance granted.

____________

 

1/  Hearing held at the Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, D.C.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-135

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 05-0650/MC.  U.S. v. Keith B. WASHINGTON.  CCA 200101011.

No. 05-0710/NA.  U.S. v. William C. TANNER.  CCA 200301120.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0056/AF.  U.S. v. Marlon G. LEWIS.  CCA 35595.

No. 06-0075/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher A. STRICKLAND.  CCA 35610.

No. 06-0115/AF.  U.S. v. Craig A. BARNETT.  CCA 35731.

No. 06-0176/NA.  U.S. v. Mark F. NEWHOUSE.  CCA 200501207.

No. 06-0261/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick C. SPIRES.  CCA 20050728.

No. 06-0301/AF.  U.S. v. Mario J. BRUNACHE, Jr.  CCA S30727.

No. 06-0326/MC.  U.S. v. Shawn A. JONES.  CCA 200501339.

No. 06-0352/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher PATRICK.  CCA 20040842.

No. 06-0385/AR.  U.S. v. Lamont D. CLEMONS.  CCA 20040927.

No. 06-0467/AR.  U.S. v. Qwesi A. DRAKES.  CCA 20050098.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0528/AR.  U.S. v. Calloway HARVEY.  CCA 20040448.

No. 06-0529/AR.  U.S. v. Gavin W. GUTHRIE.  CCA 20050405.

No. 06-0530/AR.  U.S. v. Damaal R. COOK.  CCA 20050784.

No. 06-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin J. MOCK.  CCA 20050947.

No. 06-0532/NA.  U.S. v. Hector A. COLEMAN.  CCA 200101009.

No. 06-0533/MC.  U.S. v. Joseph W. DOUGLASS.  CCA 200401186.

No. 06-0534/MC.  U.S. v. Scott W. ERDMAN.  CCA 200501296.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-134

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 05-0322/MC.  U.S. v. Ronald H. BARNETT, Jr.  CCA 9901313.

No. 05-0550/MC.  U.S. v. Nicolas REYES.  CCA 200301064.

No. 05-0575/AF.  U.S. v. Benjamin D. THOMPSON.  CCA 35274.

No. 05-0651/AR.  U.S. v. Peter A. ORD.  CCA 20020961.

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 03-0223/AF.  U.S. v. Edward D. DEES.  CCA 34841.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 58 M.J. 239 (C.A.A.F. 2003), and in light of this Court´s decision in United States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Charge II and its specifications and the sentence, but is affirmed in all other respects.  The findings of guilty to Charge II and its specifications and the sentence are set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for further action consistent with this Court’s decision in Martinelli.1

 

GIERKE, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):  I would reverse based on the military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child pornography,” see United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), rather than an absence of extraterritoriality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act. See Martinelli, 62 M.J. at 68 (Gierke, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):  For the reasons detailed in my dissents to this Court’s opinions in Martinelli and O’Connor, I disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas to the specifications of Charge II were improvident.  I respectfully dissent.

 

BAKER, Judge (dissenting):  I agree that our decision in United States v. Martinelli precludes a conviction based on 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.  However, I respectfully dissent from the order in this case because I would affirm the lesser included offense under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934, to the offense that involves Appellant’s downloading of child pornography while on duty as the Law Enforcement Desk Sergeant.  The question is whether, under the heightened standard of United States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2004), the record reveals that Appellant fully understood that his conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.  The military judge considered a lengthy stipulation of fact in this case, some thirty-eight paragraphs or so and reviewed each of these paragraphs with Appellant on the record.  Appellant admitted on the record, among other things, that at the time of the offense he was responsible for coordinating the employment of a 6-person flight engaged in routine law enforcement activities.  He agreed that his duties included receiving and processing complaints from the public.  During times of increased terrorist threats, he was responsible for employment of a thirty-person security force.  Finally, in addition to admitting that the Desk Sergeant was a “critical certified position,” he also admitted that at the time, his installation was at a “heightened risk of terrorist attack and [was] under unusually stringent force protection measures.”  After reviewing with Appellant the paragraphs that set forth in detail the nature of the images Appellant downloaded, the military judge read paragraph 38 of the stipulation to Appellant which states, “The Accused’s conduct of possessing child pornography was wrongful and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”  When asked if everything in paragraph 38 was true, Appellant responded, “Yes, ma’am.”

 

     Contrary to the majority I believe that this discussion on the record in this context between Appellant and the military judge falls within what is required under Mason.  The record demonstrates that Appellant, a member of the Security Forces Squadron, understood which of his acts were prohibited and why they were prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting.

 

No. 04-0214/AF.  U.S. v. Jason M. BRINKLEY.  CCA 34629.  On further consideration of the granted issues, 61 M.J. 55 (C.A.A.F. 2005), and in light of this Court´s decision in United States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for further action consistent with this Court’s decision in Martinelli.2

 

GIERKE, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):  I would reverse based on the military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child pornography,” see United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), rather than an absence of extraterritoriality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act.  See Martinelli, 62 M.J. at 68 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Gierke, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):  For the reasons detailed in my dissent to this Court’s opinion in Martinelli, I disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas to the specifications of the Charge were improvident.  I respectfully dissent.

 

BAKER, Judge (dissenting):  I agree that the unconstitutional definition of child pornography given in this case precludes a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.  However, on this record I would affirm the lesser included offense under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice.  In the stipulation of fact, Appellant admitted that “[t]he conduct of the accused in wrongfully receiving child pornography was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting” and included an explanation as to why.  Paragraph 7 of the stipulation states, “The actions of the accused victimized the children depicted in the pornographic images and were wrongful.”  In addition, the military judge specifically asked Appellant if he understood paragraph 7 and whether everything within that paragraph was true.  To both questions Appellant responded yes.

 

In the context of a guilty plea we have previously said that “we will look to the entire record to determine whether facts to support [Appellant’s] guilty plea have been established.”  United States v. Gaston, 62 M.J. 404, 406 (C.A.A.F. 2006).  See also United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236, 239 (C.A.A.F. 2002)(“When this Court has addressed a bare bones providence inquiry, we have not ended our analysis at the edge of the providence inquiry but, rather, looked to the entire record to determine whether the dictates of Article 45, R.C.M. 910, and [United States v. Care, 18 C.M.A. 535, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969)] and its progeny have been met.”).  It is my view that even under the heightened standard enunciated in United States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2004), this record is sufficient to affirm the lesser included offense.  For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the order reversing the finding of guilty and the sentence in this case.

 

No. 05-0013/AR.  U.S. v. Louis S. LOPEZ.  CCA 20010994.  On further consideration of the granted issues, 61 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F. 2005), and in light of this Court´s decisions in United States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), and United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for further action consistent with this Court’s decisions in Martinelli and O’Connor.3

 

GIERKE, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):  I would reverse based on the military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child pornography,” see United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003).  I respectfully disagree with footnote 3 that is premised on the absence of extraterritoriality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act.  See Martinelli, 62 M.J. at 68 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (Gierke, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):  For the reasons detailed in my dissents to this Court’s opinions in Martinelli and O’Connor, I disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas to the specifications of the Charge were improvident.  I respectfully dissent.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0004/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher M. LUCAS.  CCA 200300760.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY POST-TRIAL REVIEW WAS NOT MATERIALLY PREJUDICED BY THE UNREASONABLE DELAY IN THE POST-TRIAL PROCESSING.  ADDITIONALLY, THE DELAY FROM THE DATE OF DOCKETING UNTIL A DECISION WAS MADE BY THE LOWER COURT CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNREASONABLE DELAY IN THIS CASE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 06-0232/AF.  U.S. v. Terrell M. ADAMS.  CCA 36104.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER A UNITED STATES SENATOR'S PARTICIPATION ON A PANEL OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.

 

     No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 06-0321/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy G. GILMORE.  CCA 200401106.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S FAILURE TO DOCKET APPELLANT'S CASE WITHIN 376 DAYS OF ACTING, VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0098/AF.  U.S. v. David L. BONDI.  CCA S30485.

No. 06-0135/AF.  U.S. v. David C. NOBLE.  CCA 35761.

No. 06-0226/AF.  U.S. v. Derrie K. HALE Jr.  CCA S30374.

No. 06-0243/AR.  U.S. v. Lorenzo D. GRAYS.  CCA 20040740.

No. 06-0247/AF.  U.S. v. Douglas L. MARCY.  CCA 35705.

No. 06-0254/NA.  U.S. v. David R. NIXON.  CCA 200401568.

No. 06-0259/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffery O. MARTINOLICH.  CCA 20040344.

No. 06-0269/AF.  U.S. v. Dante S. MILLER.  CCA 35703.

No. 06-0302/AF.  U.S. v. Adam L. HARSHBARGER.  CCA 35812.

No. 06-0323/AR.  U.S. v. Mario V. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA 20030751.

No. 06-0423/AR.  U.S. v. Ross G. COLE.  CCA 20050902.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0527/AR.  U.S. v. Danielle A. REED.  CCA 20040627.

 

__________________

 

1  Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II will necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege lesser included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in violation of clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
 
2  The sole Specification of the Charge will necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege lesser included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in violation of clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
 
3  In light of this court’s ruling in Martinelli, any specifications based in whole or in part on Appellant’s actions while stationed at Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo will necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege lesser included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in violation of clauses 1 and or 2 of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-133

Monday, April 17, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0404/AF.  U.S. v. Brian K. COURPALAIS.  CCA 35571.1/

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0038/AF.  U.S. v. Tamika L. BARKER.  CCA 35560.2/

No. 06-0517/AR.  U.S. v. Kimberly S. MURPHY.  CCA 20031296.

No. 06-0518/AR.  U.S. v. Corey L. ROBINSON.  CCA 20040990.

No. 06-0519/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. COX.  CCA 20051075.

No. 06-0520/AR.  U.S. v. Danyel D. GREEN.  CCA 20021126.

No. 06-0521/AR.  U.S. v. Francisco GARCIA.  CCA 20050425.

No. 06-0522/AF.  U.S. v. Brian N. BERG.  CCA 35967.

No. 06-0523/AF.  U.S. v. Devin M. HADLEY.  CCA 35930.

No. 06-0524/AF.  U.S. v. Dennis L. RITTON.  CCA S30830.

No. 06-0525/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher M. SEARS.  CCA 35922.

No. 06-0526/MC.  U.S. v. Lavoid M. RENTAS.  CCA 200401427.

 

_______________

 

1/  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to change the date “31 December 2002” to “31 December 2000” in the findings as to Specification 1 of the Charge.  Judge Erdmann did not participate in the decision in this case.

 

2/  Second petition filed in this case. 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-132

Friday, April 14, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0471/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick A. MONETTE.  CCA 20020088.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 62 M.J. 451 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and in light of this Court’s decisions in United States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2004), and United States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Additional Charge and the sentence is set aside, but is affirmed in all other respects.  The findings of guilty of Specifications 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Additional Charge are set aside and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to that court, which may either order a rehearing as to Specifications 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Additional Charge1 and the sentence, or dismiss those five specifications and reassess the sentence or order a rehearing on the sentence only based on the remaining approved findings of guilty.

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):

 

  There is a clear substantial basis on the record to establish that Appellant understood that his actions were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Thus, this Court can approve the lesser included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in Specifications 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Additional Charge.2

 

FACTS

 

  Appellant, a Chief Warrant Officer 2, was living with his fiancée and her family, when he sexually molested his fiancée’s two nieces, ages nine and seven.  During a family outing at a local lake, Appellant “knowingly place[d] his hands onto their ‘privates[,’] both inside their swimsuits and over their clothing.”3  The following day, Appellant persuaded the two nieces to accompany him to a store to purchase gifts for his fiancée and his infant son.  Appellant drove the girls to the Post Exchange (PX), where he purchased baby products, as well as film for a Polaroid camera. 

 

After leaving the PX, Appellant drove to a secluded area behind a tall tree line.  One of the girls asked Appellant, “Where are we going?” and “I want to go home.”4  Appellant had the girls remove their clothing while he took sexually explicit, Polaroid photographs of them, as well as molested them.  Due to the fear of being detected by nearby traffic, Appellant had the girls get dressed and drove them to a second secluded location.  At the second location, Appellant “took nude pictures of the children in various sexual positions, exposed his penis and touched their vaginal and buttocks areas.”5  After they got dressed, Appellant promised the girls each $15.00 and a gift from Wal-Mart if they would not tell anyone what happened.  Appellant then took the girls to Wal-Mart to purchase the gifts.

 

After her daughters told her what happened, the victims’ mother notified law enforcement, and a search warrant was executed at Appellant’s residence.  The authorities seized the Polaroid images, as well as approximately 19,000 images of child pornography from Appellant’s computer.  Appellant was charged and convicted, consistent with his pleas, of sixteen specifications6 of various violations of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934.  During the portion of the plea inquiry relating to the violations of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a), the military judge used the definition of child pornography provided in the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA).7  He was sentenced to ten years of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and dismissal from service.  The CCA modified the findings related to five specifications involving the CPPA to the lesser included offenses of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.8  See Article 134, UCMJ.

 

DISCUSSION

 

This Court will only reject a guilty plea if the record of trial shows a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the plea.  United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236, 238 (C.A.A.F. 2002)(citing United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A. 1991)).  The factual predicate is sufficiently established if “the factual circumstances as revealed by the accused himself objectively support that plea. . . .”  United States v. Davenport, 9 M.J. 364, 367 (C.M.A. 1980).

 

Although Appellant’s plea was improvident as to the CPPA-based offenses, his plea was nonetheless provident to the lesser included offense under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, as conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service-discrediting.  See United States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15, 18 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (although accused’s plea of guilty to receiving child pornography under federal pornography statute was improvident, it was provident as to the lesser included offense of conduct prejudicial to good order and service-discrediting, where guilty plea colloquy demonstrated accused understood the nature of the conduct as being prejudicial to good order and service-discrediting).  There is substantial evidence in this record that Appellant understood the nature of his conduct of possessing child pornography and that his actions were prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.  It is well established that the creation, distribution, and possession of child pornography “whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct.”  Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002).

 

In its unpublished opinion, the CCA correctly stated:

 

  We are not permitted to affirm [A]ppellant’s guilty plea to violating the CPPA with respect to those offenses involving images of child pornography where [A]ppellant did not personally take the photographs because the trial judge used constitutionally overbroad provisions to define “child pornography.”  See United States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15, 18 (C.A.A.F. 2004); United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 454 (C.A.A.F. 2003).  We are, however, permitted to affirm the lesser-included offense under clauses 1 or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, because “the military judge openly explained” the additional element and [A]ppellant “affirmatively admit[ted] to the military judge that his conduct in doing so was both service-discrediting and to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.”  Mason, 60 M.J. at 19.

 

Slip op. at 7-8 (first three interpolations added).

 

Appellant stated that he downloaded “images that depicted children in sexual undress and sexual positions, as well as in sex” and that he knew these were children due to “the exposure, the poses, the actual sexual contact . . . the ages, the lack of reaching puberty, the size compared to perhaps adults near them.”9 

 

During the providence inquiry, the military judge did not specifically address whether the CPPA-based offenses were either service-discrediting or prejudicial to good order.  Nonetheless, the military judge elicited that Appellant believed “all of the [  ] specifications” were both “prejudicial to good order and discipline, or . . . of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”10  Therefore, there is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning his plea to the lesser included offenses.11

 

The possession and distribution of child pornography remains a criminal offense under both state and federal law.  It follows that servicemembers who deal in this perverse enterprise bring a great discredit to the armed forces as well as disrupt good order and discipline within the ranks.  Thus, because Appellant’s conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, I dissent from the order in this case.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0342/AR.  U.S. v. Mark J. SLYTER.  CCA 20050269.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0516/AF.  U.S. v. Gabriel G. LOPEZ.  CCA 36306.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 05-0072/MC.  United States, Appellee, v. Christopher E. PARKER, Appellant.  CCA 200102191.  Appellant’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s decision, 62 M.J. 459 (C.A.A.F. 2006), denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0086/AR.  U.S. v. Stanley E. EDMOND.  CCA 9900904.  On consideration of the motion filed by the National Institute of Military Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief in support of Appellant and requesting practice by students of Military Justice at the Washington College of Law, American University, and Appellee’s response to said motion, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted; that Amicus Curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument; and that Appellee may file a response to any new matters contained in the brief of Amicus Curiae within 10 days after the filing of the brief of Amicus Curiae.

 

No. 05-0649/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy WARD.  CCA 20000078.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, but only up to and including May 2, 2006; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 06-0345/NA.  U.S. v. Jonathan GRADY.  CCA 200501264.  Appellant's motion for leave to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 06-0422/AR.  U.S. v. Moses L. HAMILTON.  CCA 20030574.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 12, 2006.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 05-0262/AR.  U.S. v. Scott A. BUBER.  CCA 20000777.

No. 06-5002/CG.  U.S. v. Jeffrey M. MILLER.  CCA 005-69-01.

 

__________________

 

1 Because of our decision in this case, Specifications 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Additional Charge will necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege lesser included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in violation of clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134.
 
2 These specifications involved Appellant’s conduct of mailing, shipping, transporting, receiving, and possessing child pornography.
 
3 Stipulation of Fact at 3.
 
4 Stipulation of Fact at 3.
 
5 Slip op. at 5.
 
6 Four specifications of committing indecent acts with a female under the age of sixteen; two specifications of taking indecent liberties with a female under the age of sixteen; two specifications of kidnapping a female under sixteen years of age against her will; two specifications of inducing a female under the age of twelve years into producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); one specification of mailing, shipping, or transporting child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1); one specification of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A); three specifications of possessing compact discs, Zip disks, and hard drives containing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B); and one specification of possessing photographic images containing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
 
7 Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 121, 110 Stat. 3009-26.
 
8 Slip op. at 2.
 
9 Record at 52, 57.
 
10 Record at 51-52.
 
11 See Record at 51.
 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-131

Thursday, April 13, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0034/NA.  U.S. v. Columbia R. SHILOH.  CCA 200101238.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE DILATORY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF THIS CASE WARRANTS RELIEF BECAUSE IT TOOK ALMOST 630 DAYS TO MOVE APPELLANT'S CASE FROM SENTENCING TO THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND AN ADDITIONAL 1096 DAYS FOR AN APPEAL TO BE FILED.

 

II. IN LIGHT OF TOOHEY v. UNITED STATES AND DIAZ v. JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY, WHETHER THE INITIAL APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN HIS ASSISTANCE WHERE HE FILED 28 MOTIONS FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME, AND WHERE THE APPELLANT STATES IN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE "EXPRESSLY AND EXPLICITLY MADE SEVERAL REQUESTS TO APPELLATE COUNSELS TO EXPEDITE [HIS] APPELLATE REVIEW."

 

III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO ORDER FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS TO DETERMINE IF APPELLANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WERE EXHAUSTED AFTER IT DETERMINED THAT IT COULD NOT RULE ON APPELLANT'S CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ISSUE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issues I and II only.

 

No. 06-0366/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas WOLF.  CCA 200400753.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR DELAY IN COMPLETING THE MINISTERIAL TASK OF FORWARDING APPELLANT'S RECORD OF TRIAL TO THE LOWER COURT FOR REVIEW AND THE OVERALL 600 DAYS OF DELAY IN THE POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF APPELLANT'S CASE CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TIMELY REVIEW.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0716/NA.  U.S. v. Kevin C. BROWN.  CCA 9901754.

No. 06-0105/AF.  U.S. v. Billy R. JAWORSKI.  CCA 35530.

No. 06-0187/AF.  U.S. v. Gary P. GOUGE, Jr.  CCA S30496.

No. 06-0234/AF.  U.S. v. Kristoffer R. TALLEY.  CCA 35821.

No. 06-0264/AF.  U.S. v. Bradley R. WESCHE.  CCA S30456.

No. 06-0305/NA.  U.S. v. Jeffrey N. CLYDE.  CCA 200500492.

No. 06-0388/AR.  U.S. v. Kyle E. GRUBBS.  CCA 20050812.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-130

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0730/AR.  U.S. v. Nathan Z. PERKINS.  CCA 20021438.

No. 05-0749/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas GALCZYNSKI.  CCA 20040863.

No. 06-0040/AF.  U.S. v. James L. FREDERICK.  CCA S30454.

No. 06-0125/AR.  U.S. v. Sean B. VANDERSCHAAF.  CCA 20050316.

No. 06-0143/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremiah I. KING.  CCA 20010532.

No. 06-0203/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew J. BROWN.  CCA 35677.

No. 06-0205/AF.  U.S. v. Demario A. FOSTER.  CCA 35933.

No. 06-0222/AR.  U.S. v. Joel PEREZ, Jr.  CCA 20040827.

No. 06-0267/AF.  U.S. v. Eric W. SNOEY.  CCA 35907.

No. 06-0284/AF.  U.S. v. Heather N. EMERSON.  CCA 35783.

No. 06-0296/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph D. SLATER.  CCA 35816.

No. 06-0307/AR.  U.S. v. Anthon O. JACKMAN.  CCA 20040981.

No. 06-0311/NA.  U.S. v. Benjamin H. BROWN.  CCA 200401601.

No. 06-0335/AF.  U.S. v. John-Paul DOOLIN.  CCA 35825.

No. 06-0358/AR.  U.S. v. Antoine D. REESE.  CCA 20040794.

No. 06-0371/AF.  U.S. v. James J. ROBERTSON.  CCA 36030.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0515/AR.  U.S. v. Antonio D. SAINES.  CCA 20030059.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0473/NA.  U.S. v. Troy B. JENKINS.  CCA 200101151.  Appellant's motion for leave to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0322/MC.  U.S. v. Ronald H. BARNETT, Jr.  CCA 9901313.  Appellant's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 05-0322/MC.  U.S. v. Ronald H. BARNETT, Jr.  CCA 9901313.  Appellee's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 05-0550/MC.  U.S. v. Nicolas REYES.  CCA 200301064.  Appellee's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 06-0317/AR.  U.S. v. Robert OLIVARES, Jr.  CCA 20040225.  Appellant's motion to file additional matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), granted.

 

No. 06-0389/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher J. LINGERFELDT.  CCA 200400123.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 3, 2006.

 

No. 06-0413/AR.  U.S. v. Francisco J. NUNEZ-FLORES.  CCA 20040278.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 11, 2006.

 

No. 06-0417/NA.  U.S. v. Joseph R. KAMELY.  CCA 200201248.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 11, 2006.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-129

Monday, April 10, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0489/MC.  U.S. v. Michael D. BEASLEY.  CCA 200302001.  Appellant’s motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted and Appellee’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for grant of review denied as moot.

 

No. 06-0428/AF.  U.S. v. Jaime PEDROZA.  CCA 36568.  Appellant’s motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted without prejudice to file petition at a later time.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0504/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin L. RICHMOND.  CCA 20041117.

No. 06-0505/AR.  U.S. v. Cyrus YOUNG.  CCA 20010820.

No. 06-0506/AR.  U.S. v. Andres MARTINEZ.  CCA 20050078.

No. 06-0507/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas S. WILLARD.  CCA 20031311.

No. 06-0508/AR.  U.S. v. David T. WARHOL.  CCA 20050956.

No. 06-0509/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon D. FLOWERS.  CCA 20041169.

No. 06-0510/MC.  U.S. v. Jason A. FORREST.  CCA 200000133.

No. 06-0511/MC.  U.S. v. Luis A. MARTINEZMALDANADO.  CCA 200500070.

No. 06-0512/AF.  U.S. v. Darwin M. PAREDESILLESCAS.  CCA 36158.

No. 06-0513/AF.  U.S. v. Brian N. AREVALVO.  CCA 36001.

No. 06-0514/AF.  U.S. v. Kandi N. MCCAIN.  CCA S30798.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8011/NA.  Todd R. FORBES, Appellant, v. Commander Christian Reismeier, JAGC, USN, Military Judge; The Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and the United States, Appellees.  CCA 9901454.  Writ-appeal petition denied and Appellant’s motion for a stay of the proceedings denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0126/NA.  U.S. v. Ralph D. MCMILLAN.  CCA 9900855.  Appellant's motion to attach granted.

 

No. 06-0222/AR.  U.S. v. Joel PEREZ, Jr.  CCA 20040827.  Appellant's motion for leave to file additional matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), denied.

 

No. 06-0403/MC.  U.S. v. Damien B. SHAW.  CCA 200300312.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 8, 2006.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-128

Friday, April 07, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 02-0493/NA.  U.S. v. Andre E. LOWE.  CCA 200000956.1/

No. 06-0498/AR.  U.S. v. Alphonso L. SIMMONS, Jr.  CCA 20011090.

No. 06-0499/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin W. CHURCH.  CCA 20030616.

No. 06-0500/AF.  U.S. v. Nathaniel S. LAYNE.  CCA 36233.

No. 06-0501/AF.  U.S. v. Michael E. HARRIS.  CCA 35672.

No. 06-0502/AF.  U.S. v. Doncosta E. SEAWELL.  CCA 35531.

No. 06-0503/NA.  U.S. v. Sean A. WILSON.  CCA 200102056.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 05-0195/AF.  U.S. v. Casey D. RODERICK.  CCA 34977.

No. 05-0266/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas A. CRAWFORD.  CCA 9901590.

____________

 

1/  Second petition filed in this case.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-127

Thursday, April 06, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0241/AR.  U.S. v. Irvin M. LEWIS, III.  CCA 20050530.

No. 06-0265/AF.  U.S. v. Gene Z. WARD.  CCA 35877.

No. 06-0330/AF.  U.S. v. Kirk QUADRENY.  CCA S30741.

No. 06-0340/AR.  U.S. v. Kelvin L. WOMACK.  CCA 20050037.

No. 06-0373/AF.  U.S. v. Mark L. STONE.  CCA 36102.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0497/AR.  U.S. v. John H. ABLE.  CCA 20050224.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-126

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 05-0270/NA.  U.S. v. Roberto RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA.  CCA 9900859.1/

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0493/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony P. RAGAINS.  CCA 20031021.

No. 06-0494/AR.  U.S. v. John M. WYATT.  CCA 20040342.

No. 06-0495/AF.  U.S. v. Walter M. PATTON IV.  CCA S30426.

No. 06-0496/AF.  U.S. v. Derek M. SMITH.  CCA S30581.

____________

 

1/  Hearing held at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Denver, Colorado.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-125

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 05-0445/AF.  U.S. v. Eric J. LEONARD.  CCA 35444.1/

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0766/AR.  U.S. v. Michael D. REED.  CCA 20020341.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is 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. 05-0766/AR.  U.S. v. Michael D. REED.  CCA 20020341.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0714/AF.  U.S. v. Gregory GARGIULO.  CCA 35726.

No. 06-0164/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony G. SILVA.  CCA 20021422.

No. 06-0248/AF.  U.S. v. April L. WESTBROOK.  CCA 35615.

No. 06-0251/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan A. ROKEY.  CCA 20021247.

No. 06-0278/AR.  U.S. v. Hector M. GARCIA.  CCA 20040416.

No. 06-0315/AF.  U.S. v. Rufus D. SHUMATE.  CCA S30813.

No. 06-0318/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony J. WIRMUSKY III.  CCA 20041264.

No. 06-0329/AF.  U.S. v. Tyrance D. PHILLIPS.  CCA 36022.

No. 06-0354/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew A. COLVIN.  CCA S30639.

No. 06-0356/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon D. QUICK.  CCA 20041092.

No. 06-0357/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron F. NESBITT.  CCA 20040995.

No. 06-0361/AF.  U.S. v. Corey A. GERRICK.  CCA 36128.

No. 06-0370/AF.  U.S. v. Robert E. O’CONNELL.  CCA S30757.

No. 06-0372/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew R. ROWKER.  CCA 36087.

No. 06-0393/NA.  U.S. v. Forrest J. ZELL.  CCA 200501474.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0486/AR.  U.S. v. Wayne S. GRIMM, Jr.  CCA 20051057.

No. 06-0487/AR.  U.S. v. Travion J. REED.  CCA 20050637.

No. 06-0488/AR.  U.S. v. Carl C. GRIFFITH.  CCA 20050857.

No. 06-0489/AR.  U.S. v. Lucas W. STIMPSON.  CCA 20040060.

No. 06-0490/AR.  U.S. v. John H. LOWERY.  CCA 20040189.

No. 06-0491/AR.  U.S. v. Gerardo B. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA 20050599.

No. 06-0492/AR.  U.S. v. Joe F. HORN, Jr.  CCA 20041255.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0409/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy W. HARRIS.  CCA 200301095.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 10, 2006.

 

No. 06-0410/NA.  U.S. v. Michael T. BLUE.  CCA 200500847.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 10, 2006.

 

No. 06-0436/AR.  U.S. v. Markeith D. LYNCH.  CCA 20021180.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to May 19, 2006.

___________

 

1/  Hearing held at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-124

Monday, April 03, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0484/AR.  U.S. v. Carlos J. RODRIGUEZ-ORTIZ.  CCA 20050930.

No. 06-0485/AR.  U.S. v. Jamie D. DEAN.  CCA 20051169.

 


Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site