UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-181

Friday, May 29, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0636/AF.  U.S. v. Michael BAUMGARDNER.  CCA 37241.

No. 09-0637/AF.  U.S. v. Dustin W. CAHALL.  CCA S31458.

No. 09-0638/AF.  U.S. v. Bryan A. GORDON.  CCA 37337.

No. 09-0639/AF.  U.S. v. Carlton M. JACKSON.  CCA S31471.

No. 09-0640/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher L. KALAMASZ.  CCA S31535.

No. 09-0641/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy R. MAIN.  CCA S31518.

No. 09-0642/AF.  U.S. v. Brenton MCDANIEL.  CCA 36649.

No. 09-0643/AF.  U.S. v. Abdullah O. MOHAMMAD.  CCA 37218.

No. 09-0644/AF.  U.S. v. Ryan A. SHEETS.  CCA 37152.

No. 09-0645/AF.  U.S. v. Jose A. SOSA.  CCA 37153.

No. 09-0646/AF.  U.S. v. David A. VALOIS.  CCA 36841.

No. 09-0647/AF.  U.S. v. Kristopher T. WOLDAHL.  CCA S31519.

No. 09-0648/AR.  U.S. v. Donald A. WOOLFOLK.  CCA 20070684.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0258/NA.  U.S. v. Charles M. BURLESON.  CCA 200700143.  No. 09-0277/MC.  U.S. v. Kanku M. KABONGO.  CCA 200800398.  On consideration of the motions filed by Lieutenant Kathleen L. Kadlec for leave to withdraw as counsel in the above-entitled cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent the Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellants.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 09-0568/AR.  U.S. v. Charles M. SAVAGE.  CCA 20060167.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 11, 2009.

 

No. 09-0569/AR.  U.S. v. Benjamin A. BOYER.  CCA 20080467.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 11, 2009.

 

No. 09-0570/AR.  U.S. v. David M. HORNADAY.  CCA 20080393.  Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 12, 2009.

 

No. 09-0572/AR.  U.S. v. Chandra D. KUFFOUR.  CCA 20080232.  Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 12, 2009.

 

No. 09-0573/AR.  U.S. v. Marcus D. SMITH.  CCA 20080032.  Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 16, 2009.

 

No. 09-0574/AR.  U.S. v. Marc E. MORADO.  CCA 20080618.  Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 16, 2009.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-180

Thursday, May 28, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 08-0694/AR.  U.S. v. Ricardo K. GONZALES.  CCA 20030903.

No. 08-0765/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick T. RAYNOR.  CCA 35449.

No. 09-0118/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy L. PARKER.  CCA 20060290.

No. 09-0238/MC.  U.S. v. Joel K. PINKLER.  CCA 200700804.

No. 09-0354/AF.  U.S. v. Benjamin P. SANCHEZ, Jr.  CCA 37183.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0634/AR.  U.S. v. Juan R. GUTIERREZ.  CCA 20040596.

No. 09-0635/AR.  U.S. v. John M. REID.  CCA 20081032.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 09-8021/NA.  In Re San K. SEZGINALP.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

MADATES ISSUED

 

No. 08-0390/NA.  U.S. v. Gustavo A. DELAROSA.  CCA 200602335.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-179

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0209/NA.  U.S. v. Brian L. BRENEMAN.  CCA 200800111.

No. 09-0221/MC.  U.S. v. Roberto C. DELOYA.  CCA 200700905.

No. 09-0231/AF.  U.S. v. Keith L. PULLAM.  CCA S31170.

No. 09-0277/MC.  U.S. v. Kanku M. KABONGO.  CCA 200800398.

No. 09-0279/NA.  U.S. v. Marcus W. ZAPP.  CCA 200700844.

No. 09-0359/MC.  U.S. v. Erik P. ZACATELCO.  CCA 200700588.

No. 09-0411/AR.  U.S. v. Bryan S. LITTLETON.  CCA 20080481.

No. 09-0439/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher P. REMSBURG.  CCA 20070161.

No. 09-0457/AF.  U.S. v. Logan W. WALDRIP.  CCA S31534.

No. 09-0501/AF.  U.S. v. Andrew COLLINS.  CCA S31505.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0631/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin C. BALBIN.  CCA S31537.

No. 09-0632/AF.  U.S. v. Lawrence V. GIBBS.  CCA S31616.

No. 09-0633/AF.  U.S. v. Jeremiah HERRINGS.  CCA S31541.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0235/AR.  U.S. v. Stacy N. SHERROD.  CCA 20070932.  On consideration of Appellant’s supplement to the petition for grant of review (and the attached materials), it appears that the Appellant’s pleading, submitted under United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), does not comply with the requirements of Grostefon for appellate defense counsel to list or identify the specific issues asserted under Grostefon.  While it is appropriate to attach Appellant’s submission for consideration by the Court, this does not relieve appellate defense counsel of the obligation to identify the specific issues, even if they do not require extensive briefing.  Grostefon, 12 M.J. at 437.  Accordingly, it is ordered that appellate defense counsel file an additional pleading that lists or identifies the specific issues for the Court’s consideration under Grostefon, and that this pleading be filed with the Court within 10 days of the date of this Order.

 

United States v. BARRETT, Kristy K., 09-0502/AF

                 BITNER, Robert D., 09-0199/AF

                 BLAZIER, Joshua C., 09-0441/AF

                 BOSS, Derrick D., 09-0587/AF

                 JACKSON, Chane, 09-0562/AF

                 JONES, Steven L., 09-0271/AF

                 LEWIS, Shane W., 09-0384/AF

                 MAY, Willie L., 09-0430/AF

                 NAVE, Lantz E., 09-0385/AF

                 PARKER, Jr., Charlie, 09-0547/AF

                 SANCHEZ, Jr., Benjamin P., 09-0354/AF

                 SANTOS, Jamie F., 09-0563/AF

                 SNOW, Jamario C., 09-0565/AF

                 SUTTON, James W., 09-0458/AF

 

     On consideration of the motions filed by Major Lance J. Wood for leave to withdraw as counsel in the above-entitled cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent the Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellants.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-178

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 08-0474/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin C. CORUM.  CCA 20061124.  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.]

 

No. 09-0383/AF.  U.S. v. Eric M. JAMES.  CCA 37224.  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 hereby 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.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 08-0474/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin C. CORUM.  CCA 20061124.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 09-0380/AF.  U.S. v. James N. DURBIN.  CCA 36969.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE FOUND THAT APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE HAD A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WHILE MARRIED AND NOT SEPARATED, WAS THE MILITARY JUDGE CORRECT THAT APPELLANT COULD CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 504 ONLY AS TO HIS STATEMENTS DURING THAT CONVERSATION BUT NOT TO HIS WIFE'S AS WELL.

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THERE WAS NO HARM AFTER OVERTURNING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S RULING THAT APPELLANT'S ACT OF SHOWING HIS WIFE THAT HE HAD DELETED THE PICTURES HE SAID HE WOULD WAS NOT COMMUNICATIVE AND THEREFORE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 504.

 

  Briefs will be file under Rule 25.

 

No. 09-0383/AF.  U.S. v. Eric M. JAMES.  CCA 37224.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0071/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas D. HUFFMAN.  CCA 20060413.

No. 09-0149/AF.  U.S. v. Bianca A. TAYLOR.  CCA 37012.

No. 09-0199/AF.  U.S. v. Robert D. BITNER.  CCA 36990.

No. 09-0249/AF.  U.S. v. Ryan P. HOGAN.  CCA S31220.

No. 09-0310/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher C. DOUGLAS.  CCA 20071076.

No. 09-0320/AR.  U.S. v. Allan T. JONES.  CCA 20061224.

No. 09-0323/MC.  U.S. v. Jessie L. MEEK.  CCA 200600813.

No. 09-0364/AR.  U.S. v. Rodney A. MCRAE.  CCA 20061194.

No. 09-0438/AR.  U.S. v. Richard L. RAMOS.  CCA 20080124.

No. 09-0469/AR.  U.S. v. Tanika S. SPRUELL.  CCA 20080864.

No. 09-0475/AF.  U.S. v. Nicholas A. CHIASSON.  CCA 37312.

No. 09-0477/AR.  U.S. v. William P. BAKER Jr.  CCA 20080430.

No. 09-0483/AR.  U.S. v. Michael B. WEBB, Jr.  CCA 20080799.

No. 09-0484/AR.  U.S. v. Brian JACKSON.  CCA 20080185.

No. 09-0493/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua P. CLELAN.  CCA 37150.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 07-0553/NA.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BOLSINS.  CCA 200602408.**

No. 09-0618/CG.  U.S. v. Amanda S. GOGO.  CCA 1292.

No. 09-0619/NA.  U.S. v. Michael A. KROL.  CCA 200800728.

No. 09-0620/AR.  U.S. v. Cory A. MCGUIRE.  CCA 20080767.

No. 09-0621/AR.  U.S. v. Fermin NUNEZ.  CCA 20061021.

No. 09-0622/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip W. HARRIS.  CCA 20080587.

No. 09-0623/AR.  U.S. v. Bradley A. DUMONT.  CCA 20080516.

No. 09-0624/AR.  U.S. v. Alexander JOHNSON.  CCA 20080445.

No. 09-0625/AR.  U.S. v. Jamie PAGAN, Jr.  CCA 20080157.

No. 09-0626/AR.  U.S. v. Benjamin J. STEWART.  CCA 20080163.

No. 09-0627/AR.  U.S. v. Benjamin J. PHILLIPS.  CCA 20080590.

No. 09-0628/AR.  U.S. v. Terry D. FULTON.  CCA 20070817.

No. 09-0629/AR.  U.S. v. Mario D. PRATT.  CCA 20080841.

No. 09-0630/AR.  U.S. v. Kendall M. AMAZAKI, Jr.  CCA 20070676.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 09-8026/AR.  Hasan K. AKBAR, Petitioner v. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Colonel Paul P. Holden, Colonel John B. Hoffman, and Colonel Annamary Sullivan, and United States, Respondents.  CCA 20050514.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0370/AR.  U.S. v. Janis M. GALL-MARTIN.  CCA 20051415.  On consideration of Appellant’s fourth motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied, and Appellant will file a supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before June 5, 2009.

 

No. 09-0342/AF.  U.S. v. Timeka B. JOHNSON.  CCA S31417.

No. 09-0396/AF.  U.S. v. Marques L. WILLIAMS.  CCA S31494.

No. 09-0420/AR.  U.S. v. Gary D. FIELDS.  CCA 20080168.

No. 09-0434/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher J. FRIEND.  CCA 20080437.

No. 09-0441/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua C. BLAZIER.  CCA 36988.

 

On consideration of the petitions for grant of review in the above-listed cases, it appears that said petitions may be untimely.  See United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  Accordingly, it is ordered that each Appellant show cause on or before June 5, 2009, why the petition for grant of review should not be dismissed.  Appellee may file a reply no later than five days after the filing of Appellant’s answer to this order.

____________________

 

*  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that Specification 9, Charge II, be modified to exclude the words “on divers occasions.”

 

**  Second petition filed in this case.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-177

Friday, May 22, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 09-0143/AR.  U.S. v. Keith S. CAMPBELL.  CCA 20060426.  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. 09-0143/AR.  U.S. v. Keith S. CAMPBELL.  CCA 20060426.

[See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0614/MC.  U.S. v. Wayne J. DIGGS.  CCA 200800633.

No. 09-0615/AR.  U.S. v. Merlyn D. SEELEY, JR.  CCA 20070577.

No. 09-0616/AR.  U.S. v. Lamont K. GOODWIN.  CCA 20080816.

No. 09-0617/AR.  U.S. v. Camillo E. MEJIA-CASTILLO.  CCA 20040654.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 09-8023/NA.  In Re Michael R. CROTCHETT.  CCA 200800770.  On consideration of the motion to withdraw the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, said motion is hereby granted.

 

Misc. No. 09-8024/NA.  In Re William C. FAIRLEY.  CCA 200800762.  On consideration of the motion to withdraw the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, said motion is hereby granted.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 08-0534/NA.  United States, Appellee v. Robert PERSON, Jr., Appellant.  CCA 200600076.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s order issued June 23, 2008, dismissing Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and the Appellee’s motion for this Court’s ruling on Appellant’s petition for reconsideration, we note that Appellant claims that administrative error by the appellate defense division was the sole cause of his untimely petition for grant of review.  The petition for grant of review was filed over fourteen months out of time.  Under our decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009), the petition was untimely and failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.  It further appears that appellate counsels’ actions may have been a cause of the late filing.   This raises professional responsibility concerns.  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (order denying motion to file out of time).  Nonetheless, the petition for grant of review is untimely and the petition for reconsideration is hereby denied.  Appellee’s motion for this Court’s ruling on Appellant’s petition for reconsideration is hereby denied as moot.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0757/AR.  U.S. v. Jerry J. EDIGER.  CCA 20060275.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including June 12, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 09-0433/AR.  U.S. v. James A. HAWKINS.  CCA 20080660.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review, and in view of the motion’s noncompliance with Rule 21(f) of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied without prejudice.

 

No. 09-0513/AF.  U.S. v. Sardarius J. PUGH.  CCA 37038.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted.

 

No. 09-0553/AR.  U.S. v. Vernon R. GILLETTE.  CCA 20080868.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 8, 2009.

 

No. 09-5002/NA.  U.S. v. Willie A. BRADLEY.  CCA 200501089.  Appellant's motion to substitute joint appendix granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-176

Thursday, May 21, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0217/NA.  U.S. v. William A. BLADOW.  CCA 200800170.

No. 09-0227/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon R. GLENN.  CCA 20070770.

No. 09-0244/AF.  U.S. v. Taureen J. COFER.  CCA 37075.

No. 09-0261/AF.  U.S. v. Job GOMEZ.  CCA S31305.

No. 09-0295/AR.  U.S. v. Paul M. SIMMONS.  CCA 20080302.

No. 09-0331/AF.  U.S. v. Buford R. MCDONALD, Jr.  CCA S31427.

No. 09-0357/AF.  U.S. v. Keith L. PULLAM.  CCA S31118.

No. 09-0388/AR.  U.S. v. Daysha C. SMITH.  CCA 20071291.

No. 09-0397/AF.  U.S. v. Daniel P. PARROTTE.  CCA 37184.

No. 09-0398/AF.  U.S. v. Heinz C. KUNDEL.  CCA 37164.

No. 09-0437/AR.  U.S. v. Jess E. HOGFOSS.  CCA 20080452.

No. 09-0455/AF.  U.S. v. John R. WILLIAMS.  CCA S31513.

No. 09-0463/AF.  U.S. v. William A. MARTIN.  CCA S31461.

No. 09-0487/AR.  U.S. v. Jonszshell D. AGNEWSIMMONS.  CCA 20080710.

No. 09-0494/AF.  U.S. v. Michael L. ENNIS.  CCA S31415.

No. 09-0515/AR.  U.S. v. Andre T. DELBOS.  CCA 20080932.

No. 09-0525/AF.  U.S. v. Tabitha A. MITCHELL.  CCA 37269.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0612/AR.  U.S. v. Reno S. ASLIN.  CCA 20080789.

No. 09-0613/AR.  U.S. v. Virgilio PENATORRES.  CCA 20071353.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 08-0452/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew W. GLADUE.  CCA 36580.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-175

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 08-0339/AF.  U.S. v. Derrick M. WILLIAMS.  CCA 36679.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER, HAVING FOUND KNOWING VIOLATIONS OF AFI 31-205, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN NOT DETERMINING THAT THE VIOLATION INVOLVED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION WARRANTING CREDIT UNDER RCM 305(K).

 

WHETHER THE CONDITIONS OF APPELLANT'S PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT IN SUICIDE WATCH, WHICH INCLUDED, INTER ALIA, DENIAL OF BOOKS, A RADIO, AND/OR A CD PLAYER, AND 24-HOUR-A-DAY LIGHTING, WERE SO EXCESSIVE THAT THEY CONSTITUTE PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13, UCMJ, AND THUS, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL SENTENCE CREDIT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0012/AR.  U.S. v. Richard B. STAMPER.  CCA 20070402.

No. 09-0412/AF.  U.S. v. Scott H. HINOJOSA.  CCA S31290.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 09-0098/AR.  U.S. v. John R. ANGELL.  CCA 20080216.  Appellant filed a motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time on October 16, 2008.  The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence in Appellant’s case on August 11, 2008.  On August 13, 2008, the Clerk of the Army court caused a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to be sent to Appellant by certified mail to the address provided by Appellant on his “Post-Trial Appellate Rights” form.  As constructive service was effected on August 13, 2008, Appellant’s sixty-day period within which to file a petition for grant of review under Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2) (2000), expired on October 14, 2008, the first working day following the expiration of the actual sixty days on Sunday, October 12, 2008.  See C.A.A.F. R. 34(a).  The petition for grant of review and the motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time were delivered to the Court on October 16, 2008.  The petition for grant of review is untimely and fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.  United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  The motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time must be denied.

We note that in proffering a basis for the relief requested in the motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time, appellate defense counsel informed the Court that he had assured Appellant he would file the petition for grant of review.  Despite this assurance, counsel states, “The undersigned appellate counsel’s inefficiency resulted in the Petition for Grant of Review not being filed until 16 October 2008.”  Thus, counsel’s conduct is the cause of Appellant being denied his right to petition this Court for a grant of review.  This neglect raises professional responsibility concerns. 

Prior to our decision in Rodriguez, the Court had permitted a petition for grant of review to be filed out of time where the cause of that late filing was the act or omission of appellate counsel.  See United States v. Tamez, 63 M.J. 201, 202-03 (C.A.A.F. 2006).  Under Rodriguez, the Court does not have discretion to excuse an untimely petition for grant of review even where that untimeliness is the result of appellate counsel’s acts or omissions.  We acknowledge that Rodriguez is a change to our appellate practice and that this change can have significant professional responsibility implications where counsel’s conduct causes a client to be denied access to this Court. 

Rule 15(c) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides: “If it appears that a member of the Bar of this Court has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, or failed to comply with this Rule or any other Rule or order of the Court, the Court may enter an order affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 30 days, why disciplinary action should not be taken.”  Under this Rule, the Court could exercise its discretion in cases where counsel is or may be responsible for filing a petition for grant of review out of time and order the appellate counsel involved to show cause.  However, in light of the Court’s past practice, we decline to do so at this point.  Nonetheless, appellate counsel should take careful note of Rodriguez and be fully aware of the professional responsibility issues inherent in protecting a client’s access to the Court.  In the future, we may consider those cases where appellate counsel is or appears to be responsible for failing to timely invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as raising potential professional responsibility issues and we will consider exercising our discretion to initiate inquiry under Rule 15(c) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time is hereby denied.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

Although I would adhere to our longstanding treatment of time limitations for petitions as nonjurisdictional, see United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 117 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., dissenting), I recognize that Rodriguez is the controlling decision at the present time with respect to petitions filed under Article 67(a)(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(1) (2000).  See id. at 116 (majority opinion) (treating time limitations for petitions as jurisdictional).

 

Irrespective of the jurisdictional treatment of petitions, Appellant’s case is subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2) -- the authority of the Judge Advocate General to certify cases for review.  See Rodriguez, 67 M.J. at 116 n.11 (majority opinion).  Consideration of certification under Article 67(a)(2) by the Judge Advocate General would appear to be particularly appropriate in view of the professional responsibility of counsel appointed by the Judge Advocate General to ensure timely filing.  See Article 70, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 870 (2000).  Cf. Article 6(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 806(a) (2000) (noting the responsibilities of the Judge Advocate General regarding supervision of the administration of military justice).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I would continue to apply this Court’s longstanding precedent and interpretation of Article 67, UCMJ, and treat the time limitations for petitions as nonjurisdictional.  See United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).  However, for the reasons set forth in Chief Judge Effron's separate opinion in the present case, United States v. Angell, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring), I concur in the result.  I also echo the Chief Judge’s suggestion that the Judge Advocates General (TJAGs) consider certification of cases to this Court under Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ.  Such consideration is appropriate in light of the TJAGs’ responsibility to train and assign personnel to the appellate defense offices.  Consideration would seem particularly appropriate in cases where the facts of service are uncertain and/or a filing may have been delayed as a result of an administrative oversight or confusion on the part of government-assigned staff or defense counsel at the trial or appellate level.  Prior to Rodriguez, this Court would have addressed such factors through application of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permitting review of out-of-time petitions for good cause shown, which, of course, is different than granting the case.  Now that this Court has moved the goal posts, numerous appellants may find that they are denied review before a federal civilian appellate court.  Likewise, numerous defense counsel may find that they have been playing out of bounds.  To remedy these situations, the TJAGs retain the opportunity to determine whether the ineffective assistance of counsel claims that may be generated by the many delayed filings now barred by Rodriguez are best addressed either within the military appellate process or through collateral review in the Article III courts.  Among other things, review before this court will provide for the application of uniform standards, as Congress intended.  It will also allow the military justice system to determine whether any underlying claims, involving untimely appeals, can be addressed through application of the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

 

No. 08-0612/AF.  U.S. v. Esau TUBERVILLE, JR.  CCA S31139.  Appellant filed a motion to submit the petition for grant of review out of time on June 4, 2008, and a motion to submit the supplement to petition for grant of review on July 7, 2008.  The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision in Appellant’s case on March 19, 2008.  On March 26, 2008, a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision was sent to Appellant by certified mail.  As constructive service was effected on March 26, Appellant’s sixty-day period within which to file a petition for grant of review under Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2) (2000), expired on May 27, 2008, the first working day following the expiration of the actual sixty days.  See C.A.A.F. R. 34(a).  The petition for grant of review is untimely and fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  We note that in proffering a basis for accepting Appellant’s untimely petition for grant of review, appellate defense counsel informed the court that data relating to Appellant’s case was incorrectly entered into the Air Force electronic database and, as a result, the case did not appear on counsel’s docket.  Thus, counsel’s conduct may be a cause of Appellant being denied his right to petition this Court for a grant of review.  This raises professional responsibility concerns.  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (order denying motion to file out of time).  Nonetheless, the petition for grant of review is untimely and the motion to submit the petition for grant of review out of time must be denied.  Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellant’s motion to submit the petition for grant of review out of time is hereby denied, and that Appellant’s motion to submit the supplement to the petition for grant of review is hereby denied as moot.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result).

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 08-0618/AF.  U.S. v. Leon GREENWOOD.  CCA 36461.  Appellant filed a petition for grant of review on June 6, 2008.  The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision on Appellant’s case on November 6, 2007.  On November 9, 2007, the Air Force court caused a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to be sent to Appellant by certified mail to the address provided by Appellant on his post-trial appellate rights form.  Constructive service was effected on November 9, 2007, and Appellant’s sixty-day period within which to file a petition for grant of review under Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2) (2000), expired on January 7, 2008.  The petition for grant of review is untimely and fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  We note that in proffering a basis for accepting Appellant’s untimely petition for grant of review, appellate defense counsel informed the Court that appellate defense counsel was responsible for filing the petition for grant of review.  Despite this responsibility, counsel states that “administrative oversight” resulted in counsel being unaware of the filing date for the petition for grant of review.  Thus, it appears that appellate counsel’s administrative oversight is a cause of Appellant being denied his right to petition this Court for a grant of review.  This oversight raises professional responsibility concerns.  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (order denying motion to file out of time).  Accordingly, it is ordered that the Court’s notice issued June 6, 2008, docketing the petition for grant of review is hereby vacated, and Appellant’s petition for grant of review is hereby dismissed.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 08-0653/AR.  U.S. v. Gary MCCARNS.  CCA 20050762.  On consideration of Appellee’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for grant of review and in light of our decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009), it is ordered that Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review is hereby granted, and that this Court’s notice issued July 18, 2008, docketing the petition for grant of review is hereby vacated.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result).

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 08-0688/AR.  U.S. v. Derek L. THOMAS.  CCA 20070409.  On consideration of the Appellee’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for grant of review and in light of our decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009), it is, ordered that Appellee’s motion to dismiss this petition for grant of review is hereby granted, and that this Court’s notice issued August 7, 2008, docketing the petition for grant of review is hereby vacated.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result).

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 09-0097/AR.  U.S. v. Gerson M.B. MENDOZA.  CCA 20060475.  Appellant filed a motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time on October 16, 2008.  The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence in Appellant’s case on August 7, 2008.  On August 11, 2008, the Appellant was personally served with a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision.  As actual service was effected on August 11, Appellant’s sixty-day period within which to file a petition for grant of review under Article 67(b)(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(1) (2000), expired on Friday, October 10, 2008.  The petition for grant of review is untimely and fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.  United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  We note that in proffering a basis for accepting Appellant’s untimely petition for grant of review, appellate defense counsel informed the Court that miscommunication between Appellant and counsel caused Appellant to believe that counsel would file the petition for grant of review.  We are further informed by appellate defense counsel that there was additional confusion and miscommunication between civilian defense counsel and military appellate defense counsel that contributed to the late filing.  Thus, it appears that appellate counsels’ conduct may have been a cause of Appellant being denied his right to petition this Court for a grant of review.  This raises professional responsibility concerns.  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (order denying motion to file out of time).  Nonetheless, the petition for grant of review is untimely and the motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time must be denied.  Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time is hereby denied.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 09-0144/AR.  U.S. v. Derrick L. VALENTINE.  CCA 20070854.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time and the Government’s opposition motion to Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time (which we will treat as an “answer to the motion” under C.A.A.F. R. 30(b)), we note that constructive service was effected by serving the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals by certified mail upon Appellant at an address provided by him.  See Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2) (2000).  The sixty-day period within which to file the petition for grant of review commenced on July 31, 2008, and expired on September 29, 2008.  The petition for grant of review, filed by counsel on October 30, 2008, was out of time and fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.  See United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time is hereby denied.  The Court’s notice and order issued October 30, 2008, is hereby vacated.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 09-0291/AF.  U.S. v. Eric W. COX.  CCA 37211.  Appellant filed a petition for grant of review on December 24, 2008.  Appellant then filed a motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review [out of time] on December 30, 2008.  The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence in Appellant’s case on August 20, 2008.  On August 26, 2008, the Clerk of the Air Force court caused a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to be sent to Appellant by certified mail to “the last address provided by the accused.”  As constructive service was effected on August 26, 2008, Appellant’s sixty-day period within which to file a petition for grant of review under Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2) (2000), expired on Monday, October 27, 2008, the first working day following the expiration of the actual sixty days on Saturday, October 25, 2008.  See C.A.A.F. R. 34(a).  The petition for grant of review is untimely and the petition fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  We note that in proffering a basis for the relief requested in the motion to file out of time, appellate defense counsel informed the Court that the petition was late due to “an administrative error and change in appellate defense counsel.”  Thus, it appears that counsel’s administrative error is a cause of Appellant being denied his right to petition this Court for a grant of review.  This oversight raises professional responsibility concerns.  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (order denying motion to file out of time).  Nonetheless, the petition for grant of review is untimely and the motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review [out of time] must be denied.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review [out of time] is hereby denied.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2).  See United States v. Angell, No. 09-0098, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result).

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0610/NA.  U.S. v. John W. WIDDOWSON.  CCA 200700252.

No. 09-0611/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin L. NORRIS.  CCA 20071007.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0547/NA.  U.S. v. Krystal A. ESPOSITO.  CCA 200700348.  On consideration of Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review and Appellant’s reply to Appellee’s motion to dismiss as well as Appellant’s motion to attach, we note that the Government purported to effect constructive service of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals upon Appellant at the Norfolk Navy Brig, Norfolk, Virginia, on March 14, 2008.  The record also reflects that upon being advised of her appellate rights after trial, Appellant provided an address in the State of New York.  Appellant’s trial ended on November 30, 2006, and her sentence included, inter alia, confinement for a period of ten months.  Even assuming that Appellant served the entire period of adjudged confinement, she would have been released five and one-half months before service was attempted upon her at the confinement facility.  We conclude that the attempted service on March 14, 2008, mailed to the Norfolk Navy Brig was not service by "certified mail to the accused at an address provided by the accused or, if no such address has been provided by the accused at the latest address listed for the accused in [her] official service record" as required by Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §867(b)(2) (2000).  As the Government has failed to demonstrate proper constructive service of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, it is ordered that Appellant’s motion to attach is hereby granted, and that Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review is hereby denied.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I would adhere to our longstanding treatment of time limitations for petitions as nonjurisdictional, see United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 117 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., dissenting), and concur in the result.

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 08-0746/MC.  U.S. v. Joseph P. SCHWEITZER.  CCA 200000755.  Appellee’s motion to supplement the joint appendix is granted.1

 

No. 09-0072/AR.  U.S. v. Ganon S. MCCLORY.  CCA 20061042.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time and the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, we note that service of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision was attempted at Appellant’s permanent home address.  There is no evidence, however, that service of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision was attempted at the address provided by Appellant on his “Post-Trial and Appellate Rights” form.  We conclude, therefore, that the sixty-day period within which to file a petition for grant of review was not triggered by constructive service under Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2) (2000).  Further, there is no evidence of record upon which to otherwise conclude that Appellant’s petition for grant of review is untimely.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied; that in light of the foregoing, Appellant’s motion for leave to file the petition for grant of review out of time is hereby denied as moot, and that Appellent will file supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before June 19, 2009.  

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I would adhere to our longstanding treatment of time limitations for petitions as nonjurisdictional, see United States Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 117 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., dissenting), and concur in the result.

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 09-0177/AR.  U.S. v. Victor E. SANGA.  CCA 20060574.  On consideration of the Appellee’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, we note that Appellant completed an Appellate Rights Form, Appellate Exhibit X, upon which he provided a contact address and that a copy of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in Appellant’s case was sent by certified mail to an address other than that provided by Appellant.  The appellate papers contain no explanation for using an address other than that provided by Appellant.  We conclude that constructive service at an address other than that provided by Appellant was ineffective and that there is no proof of actual service in this record.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion to file a reply to the Appellee’s motion to dismiss out of time, we note that Appellant has failed to provide sufficient factual or legal basis for relief.  Accordingly, it is ordered That Appellee’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied, and that Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Appellee’s motion to dismiss out of time is hereby denied.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I would adhere to our longstanding treatment of time limitations for petitions as nonjurisdictional, see United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 117 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., dissenting), and concur in the result.

 

BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):

 

I concur in the result.  See United States v. Angell, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., concurring), and United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

No. 09-0536/AR.  U.S. v. Eric J. ESPINOSA.  CCA 20080506.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including June 2, 2009.

 

No. 09-0537/AR.  U.S. v. Dominique N. FRANCOIS.  CCA 20080796.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including June 2, 2009.

 

No. 09-0539/AR.  U.S. v. Kevon J. GREENIDGE.  CCA 20080436.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including June 2, 2009.

 

No. 09-0541/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathan M. HOGUE.  CCA 20080775.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including June 2, 2009.

 

No. 09-0542/AR.  U.S. v. Heather N. POMEROY.  CCA 20080600.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including June 2, 2009.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 05-0647/NA.  U.S. v. Brendan C. FORNEY.  CCA 200200462.

No. 06-0591/AR.  U.S. v. Harvey A. GARDINIER II.  CCA 20020427.

No. 08-0596/AF.  U.S. v. Jesse I. RANNEY.  CCA S31046.

____________________

 
1 Chief Judge Andrew S. Effron, Judge James E. Baker, and Judge Margaret A. Ryan have recused themselves from this case and did not participate in this order.  Senior Judge Robinson O. Everett, Senior Judge Walter T. Cox III, and Senior Judge H. F. “Sparky” Gierke have been called upon by Acting Chief Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann and consented to participate in this case pursuant to Article 142(e)(1)(A)(iii), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 942(e)(1)(A)(iii) (2000).



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-174

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0606/AR.  U.S. v. Nathan F. GRIFFITH.  CCA 20080933.

No. 09-0607/AR.  U.S. v. Derek W. MILLER.  CCA 20081006.

No. 09-0608/AR.  U.S. v. James Z. YELVERTON.  CCA 418990.

No. 09-0609/AR.  U.S. v. Juan R. GUTIERREZ.  CCA 20040596.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 09-8025/AR.  Hasan K. AKBAR, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent.  CCA 20050514.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-173

Monday, May 18, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0596/AF.  U.S. v. Robert S. ANDERSON.  CCA 37214.

No. 09-0597/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher J. COLVANO.  CCA 37121.

No. 09-0598/AF.  U.S. v. Jeffrey W. DALTON.  CCA S31508.

No. 09-0599/AF.  U.S. v. Jezreel D. IVY.  CCA A31406.

No. 09-0600/AF.  U.S. v. Ryan E. OSWALD.  CCA S31554.

No. 09-0601/AF.  U.S. v. Robert B. SWINGLE.  CCA 37256.

No. 09-0602/AF.  U.S. v. Michael L. ROOSA.  CCA 37151.

No. 09-0603/NA.  U.S. v. John IRWIN, Jr.  CCA 200800800.

No. 09-0604/MC.  U.S. v. Maurice P. WILLIAMS.  CCA 200800761.

No. 09-0605/AR.  U.S. v. William S. MARET.  CCA 20080722.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-172

Friday, May 15, 2009

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-5004/NA.  U.S. v. Raymond L. NEAL.  CCA 200800746.  On April 14, 2009, the United States filed a motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a certificate for review in the above-captioned case.  The Court granted that motion to May 15, 2009, (Daily Journal, April 23, 2009).  Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and a brief of the Appellant were filed under Rule 22 on May 15, 2009, on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS ARTICLE 62, UCMJ, APPEAL, WHERE THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN AFTER THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AND THE MEMBERS DISMISSED.

 

II.  DESPITE THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 120(r), UCMJ, WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE ARTICLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE ACCUSED FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF CONSENT IN ORDER TO NEGATE AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.

 

III. CONCERNING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 120(t)(16), WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOCATED, TO THE ACCUSED, THE BURDEN OF PROVING CONSENT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

 

IV.  WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT “LACK OF CONSENT” IS NOT AN IMPLICIT ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 120 CRIMES, INCLUDING THE CHARGED OFFENSE, GIVEN THE DEFINITION OF “FORCE” IN ARTICLE 120(t)(5), AND THUS ARTICLE 120, UCMJ, DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE ACCUSED TO “DISPROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.”

 

V.   WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE TRIGGERED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF CONSENT AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 120(t)(16), UCMJ, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE OBJECTIVE ACTS OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE.

 

VI.  WHETHER THE FINAL TWO SENTENCES OF ARTICLE 120(t)(16), UCMJ, WHICH ALLOWS FOR CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISPROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF CONSENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS PROVED THE DEFENSE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, CREATE A LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ALLOCATION.

 

Appellee will file a brief regarding the certified issues on or before May 26, 2009.  Appellant may file a reply no later than five days after the filing of Appellee’s brief.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0593/MC.  U.S. v. David M. SOSEBEE.  CCA 200800277.

No. 09-0594/NA.  U.S. v. Charles BELL.  CCA 200800199.

No. 09-0595/AR.  U.S. v. David J. LINDSEY.  CCA 20080465.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-171

Thursday, May 14, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0299/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph D. JACKSON.  CCA 20080367.

No. 09-0406/AR.  U.S. v. Michaella B. ADKINS.  CCA 20080599.

No. 09-0413/AF.  U.S. v. Ruben N. ABLANG.  CCA 37131.

No. 09-0425/AR.  U.S. v. Franklin H. MOONEY.  CCA 20050670.

No. 09-0485/AR.  U.S. v. Trevor G. WALSH.  CCA 20080536.

No. 09-0488/AR.  U.S. v. Justin W. GREEN.  CCA 20080388.

No. 09-0506/AR.  U.S. v. Jessie GARZA, Jr.  CCA 20081055.

No. 09-0557/AF.  U.S. v. Thomas W. SCHAAB.  CCA S31586.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0592/AR.  U.S. v. Kyle S. SMITH.  CCA 20080444.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0169/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. SMITH.  CCA 20060541.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including June 12, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 09-0495/AR.  U.S. v. Charlette D. JOHNSON.  CCA 20060575.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted.

 

No. 09-0503/AR.  U.S. v. David J. LEWIS.  CCA 20080487.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including May 28, 2009, 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. 09-170

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0591/AR.  U.S. v. Clara L. SANTILLIAN FLORES.  CCA 20080905.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-170

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0591/AR.  U.S. v. Clara L. SANTILLIAN FLORES.  CCA 20080905.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-169

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0159/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy T. WILCOX.  CCA 20000876.*

No. 09-0588/AR.  U.S. v. Ricky L. FISHER.  CCA 20080012.

No. 09-0589/AR.  U.S. v. Robert C. HUNTZINGER.  CCA 20060976.

No. 09-0590/AR.  U.S. v. Dean R. GUAY, Jr.  CCA 20071066.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 05-0647/NA.  United States, Appellee v. Brendan C. FORNEY, Appellant.  CCA 200200462.  Appellant timely petitioned for reconsideration of this Court’s decision in United States v. Forney, 67 M.J. 271 (C.A.A.F. 2009). Appellee responded and subsequently moved to correct errata.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said motion to correct errata is hereby granted, and that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0517/AR.  U.S. v. James M. BLANKS.  CCA 20071155.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including May 26, 2009.

 

No. 09-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Norman R. HOTRUM.  CCA 20060649.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including May 29, 2009.

_____________________

 

*  Third petition filed in this case.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-168

Monday, May 11, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0351/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew A. MCCRARY.  CCA S31476.

No. 09-0394/AR.  U.S. v. Peter A. ERNST II.  CCA 20070632.

No. 09-0468/AF.  U.S. v. Jose A. BORUNDA.  CCA S31425.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0584/AF.  U.S. v. Heather L. OGLETREE.  CCA 37168.

No. 09-0585/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy  C. RIDGLEY.  CCA 36058.

No. 09-0586/AF.  U.S. v. Chad A. RHINE.  CCA 37004.

No. 09-0587/AF.  U.S. v. Derrick D. BOSS.  CCA 37275.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-167

Friday, May 8, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0040/NA.  U.S. v. Cordell ADAMS.  CCA 200700817.

No. 09-0195/AR.  U.S. v. Sean C. JORGENSEN.  CCA 20071173.

No. 09-0318/NA.  U.S. v. Joseph C. BENEDETTO.  CCA 200800117.

No. 09-0325/AF.  U.S. v. Karl E. WODA IV.  CCA 37132.

No. 09-0360/AR.  U.S. v. James A. STACKHOUSE III.  CCA 20080390.

No. 09-0405/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph B. ALBA II.  CCA 20080549.

No. 09-0467/AF.  U.S. v. Thomas G. CARTER Jr.  CCA 37229.

No. 09-0497/AR.  U.S. v. Maurice DOAN, II.  CCA 20080606.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0582/AF.  U.S. v. Jeremy B. RUSSELL.  CCA 37210.

No. 09-0583/AF.  U.S. v. Jason E. NEAL.  CCA 37195.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0512/AR.  U.S. v. Joe M. ROMERO.  CCA 20081014.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including May 22, 2009.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-166

Thursday, May 7, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 09-0057/AR.  U.S. v. Craig A. ROSS.  CCA 20070503.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.* [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* Noting that the opinion of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously listed Appellant’s middle initial as R, vice A, it is directed that the middle initial be corrected.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 09-0057/AR.  U.S. v. Craig A. ROSS.  CCA 20070503.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0099/AR.  U.S. v. Angel D. ESCOBALES.  CCA 20771135.

No. 09-0184/AF.  U.S. v. Scott A. DINKLE, Jr.  CCA 36899.

No. 09-0456/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph K. WALKER Jr.  CCA S31491.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 09-8023/NA.  In Re Michael R. CROTCHETT.  CCA 200800770.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.

 

Misc. No. 09-8024/NA.  In Re William C. FAIRLEY.  CCA 200800762.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-165

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0270/AF.  U.S. v. Nathan W. ELLIS.  CCA 37129.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

<>No. 09-0581/AF.  U.S. v. Devery L. TAYLOR.  CCA 37065. 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-164

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 08-0344/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan G. ANDERSON.  CCA 20040897.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

SHOULD THE MILITARY JUDGE HAVE DISMISSED CHARGE III AS PREEMPTED, MULTIPLICIOUS, AND AN UNREASONABLE MULTIPLICATION OF CHARGES; AND THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE AS MULTIPLICIOUS WITH CHARGE I, SPECIFICATION 1, AND AN UNREASONABLE MULTIPLICATION OF CHARGES WITH CHARGE I, SPECIFICATION 2?

 

WAS APPELLANT AFFORDED A FAIR TRIAL EVEN THOUGH HIS REQUEST FOR A FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST WAS DENIED AND THE GOVERNMENT THEREAFTER AVAILED ITSELF OF A FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST AND ATTACKED THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE VERY EXPERT IT DID MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 08-0579/AR.  U.S. v. Marcel D. THOMPSON.  CCA 20060562.

No. 09-0246/AF.  U.S. v. Robert A.D. WEIR.  CCA S31423.

No. 09-0274/AF.  U.S. v. Daniel V. HOLLAND.  CCA S31411.

No. 09-0298/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin C. SHOEMAKER.  CCA 20071273.

No. 09-0391/AR.  U.S. v. William T. FAULKNER, Jr.  CCA 20080461.

No. 09-0451/AR.  U.S. v. Fleming A. VALERIO.  CCA 20071037.

No. 09-0459/AF.  U.S. v. George K. SPARKS.  CCA S31503.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0719/CG.  U.S. v. Webster M. SMITH.  CCA 1275.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the brief under seal is granted.  Appellant’s brief and appendix attached thereto are hereby sealed pending further order of the Court.

 

No. 09-0472/AR.  U.S. v. Edgar L. OLIVA, Jr.  CCA 20080774.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including May 15, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 09-0481/AR.  U.S. v. Jason E. PADEN.  CCA 20070556.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including May 19, 2009, 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. 09-163

Monday, May 4, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0576/AF.  U.S. v. Russell C. MELVIN.  CCA 37081.

No. 09-0577/AF.  U.S. v. Nathan W. ROBERTS II.  CCA 37000.

No. 09-0578/AR.  U.S. v. Paul S. DUNBAR.  CCA 20080468.

No. 09-0579/AR.  U.S. v. Lashonda N. HARRIS.  CCA 20080310.

No. 09-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. GRIFFITH.  CCA 20081028.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 09-8018/NA.  Michael C. DIPAOLA, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent.  CCA 200602442.  On consideration of Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief and Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied, and said motion to dismiss the petition for extraordinary relief is hereby denied as moot.

 

Misc. No. 09-8019/AR.  Joshua A. DIXON, Appellant v. F. L. HAGENBECK, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army Convening Authority, and Andrew J. GLASS, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Judge, and The United States, Appellees.  CCA 20090001.  On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0489/AF.  U.S. v. Danial A. BEADLE.  CCA 37225.   Appellant's motion to submit attached corrected pages granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 09-162

Friday, May 1, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0167/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin D. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA 36964.

No. 09-0216/AR.  U.S. v. Kellye S. JOHNSON.  CCA 20080758.

No. 09-0346/AF.  U.S. v. Michael R. DAVIS.  CCA 37120.

No. 09-0347/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew W. HAGUE.  CCA S31517.

No. 09-0352/AF.  U.S. v. Charles D. KEEN.  CCA 37148.

No. 09-0378/AF.  U.S. v. Jonathan B. BUSH.  CCA S31439.

No. 09-0402/AR.  U.S. v. James R. HAISLOP.  CCA 20071021.

No. 09-0416/AR.  U.S. v. Shane A. WILLIAMS.  CCA 20080471.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-0575/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua M. BRADLEY.  CCA S31559.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0644/AR.  U.S. v. Charles J. CLAYTON.  CCA 20070145.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that further pleadings regarding assigned issue I are necessary in light of United States v. Macomber, 67 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F. 2009).  Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellant file an additional supplement within 30 days of the date of this order, and that Appellee file an additional answer within 30 days of the date of the filing of Appellant’s additional supplement. 

 


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