UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-200

Thursday, June 30, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0497/MC. U.S. v. Desmond J. HORTON. CCA 201000481. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DECLINING TO APPLY MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS, IN APPLYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL HARMLESSNESS TEST INCORRECTLY, AND IN ASSERTING THAT UNITED STATES v. MAGYARI CONTROLS WHEN IT HELD THAT: (1) DRUG LABORATORY DOCUMENTS ARE NON-TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE; (2) DRUG LAB REPORTS ARE BUSINESS RECORDS THAT FALL UNDER THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION, AND (3) THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE LAB REPORT WAS GENERATED FOR COURT-MARTIAL USE.

 

II. WHETHER IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S RULING IN MELENDEZ-DIAZ, THE ADMISSION OF REPORTS GENERATED BY ABSENT, UNTESTED LAB TECHNICIANS IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AMOUNTED TO EITHER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL OR PLAIN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0529/AF. U.S. v. Matthew C. ROTH. CCA S31834. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0463/AR. U.S. v. Jermaine J. JOHNSON. CCA 20090797.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0391/AR. U.S. v. Steven K. SHAFER. CCA 20090650.*

No. 11-0587/AR. U.S. v. Brandon WHIPPLE. CCA 20100379.

No. 11-0588/AR. U.S. v. Corey MCLINTIC. CCA 20100880.

No. 11-0589/AR. U.S. v. Randa L. TAYLOR. CCA 20080958.

No. 11-0590/AR. U.S. v. Anthony C. KEENE, Jr. CCA 20100516.

___________________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-199

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0514/NA. U.S. v. Damien J. AUTRY. CCA 201100105. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0586/MC. U.S. v. Curtis C. GRANT. CCA 201000651.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0529/AF. U.S. v. Matthew C. ROTH. CCA S31834. Appellant's motion for leave to file an additional supplement granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-198

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0521/AR.  U.S. v. Harold K. PARKER.  CCA 20100308.

No. 11-0522/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony M. LINTON.  CCA 20090511.

No. 11-0528/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon S. BOUGH.  CCA S31815.

No. 11-0533/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher A. LUZON.  CCA S31821.

No. 11-0534/AF.  U.S. v. William S. BRYANT.  CCA 37619.

No. 11-0535/AR.  U.S. v. Michael R. GEARY.  CCA 20100426.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0583/NA.  U.S. v. Michael D. KING, Jr.  CCA 201000406.

No. 11-0584/AR.  U.S. v. William T. PAIVA.  CCA 20100258.

No. 11-0585/AR.  U.S. v. Walter U. ZIMMERMAN.  CCA 20100427.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8024/NA.  U.S. v. John R. DAVENPORT  CCA 201000067.  On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said writ-appeal petition is hereby denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-197

Monday, June 27, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0494/AF.  U.S. v. Michael T. NERAD.  CCA 36994.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0504/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy A. COLLINS.  CCA 20090368.

No. 11-0517/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew F. LEAVASA.  CCA 20100505.

No. 11-0518/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas J. KOPP.  CCA 20100629.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0582/MC.  U.S. v. Christian W. CARNEY.  CCA 201000149.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 10-0383/MC.  U.S. v. Geoffrey L. SULLIVAN.  CCA 200900148.

No. 11-0131/AF.  U.S. v. Shawn R. HULL.  CCA 37470.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-196

Friday, June 24, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0488/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony J. AVERY.  CCA 20100947.

No. 11-0502/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher J. LOPEZ.  CCA 20100246.

No. 11-0512/AR.  U.S. v. Ira D. RHODES.  CCA 20100908.

No. 11-0513/AR.  U.S. v. Luke S. EWING.  CCA 20100699.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0581/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip M. JORDAN.  CCA 20100847.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0546/AR.  U.S. v. Stephen R. RHOTEN.  CCA 20080971.  On consideration of Appellant's motion for enlargement of time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted up to and including July 7, 2011.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-195

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0554/AR.  U.S. v. Terry D. RORRO.  CCA 20100750.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Gregory A. ROBINSON.  CCA 20100495.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0413/NA.  U.S. v. Anthony P. BALLAN.  CCA 201000242.  Appellant's motion for enlargement of time to file a brief granted, but only up to and including July 20, 2011, 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. 11-194

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0467/AR.  U.S. v. Arthur R. YOUNG Jr.  CCA 20090092.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and Appellant’s motion to file a supplemental supplement to the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion to file a supplemental supplement to the petition for grant of review is hereby granted, and that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0525/AF.  U.S. v. Michael P. GRAFMULLER.  CCA 37524.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-6007/AR.  U.S. v. Demetrice K. BAKER.  CCA 20100841.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862, and Appellant’s motion for a stay of the proceedings, it is ordered that said motion for a stay of the proceedings is hereby granted, and that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED (1) IN FINDING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S SUPPRESSION OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND (2) IN HOLDING THAT THE PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES WERE RELIABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ARMY COURT MADE IMPERMISSIBLE FINDINGS OF FACT UNDER ARTICLE 62 AND RELIED ON SUCH FINDINGS IN OVERRULING THE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0578/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon T. BRANTLEY.  CCA 20100528.

No. 11-0579/AR.  U.S. v. Nathaniel J. CONQUOY.  CCA 20100583.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-8038/AF.  In Re Lee W. PAYTON, Jr., Petitioner.   Petitioner's motion to submit a corrected petition is granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-193

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0495/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon K. PRICE.  CCA 20100382.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0511/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron P. STONE.  CCA 20090332.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0477/AR.  U.S. v. Michael A. DUBIK.  CCA 20080384.

No. 11-0499/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin M. RANDALL.  CCA 20080953.

No. 11-0508/AR.  U.S. v. Montgomery L. BREDA .  CCA 20100567.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0575/NA.  U.S. v. Corry F. OLMOS.  CCA 201100133.

No. 11-0576/AR.  U.S. v. Evan A. VEGTEL.  CCA 20100777.

No. 11-0577/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony ROMERO.  CCA 20100163.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8027/NA.  In Re Justin H. MCMURRIN, Petitioner v. The Honorable Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, and Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston , Respondents.On consideration of Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus as moot, said motion is hereby granted.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0547/AR.  U.S. v. Ivan D. GOINGS.  CCA 20080602.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including July 8, 2011.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-192

Monday, June 20, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0570/AR.  U.S. v. Jordan BARTLEY.  CCA 20100346.

No. 11-0571/AR.  U.S. v. Darius G. CUNNINGHAM.  CCA 20080848.

No. 11-0572/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph R. CUTLER.  CCA 20101030.

No. 11-0573/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas A. BEACH.  CCA 20100504.

No. 11-0574/AR.  U.S. v. Derek S. DEAN.  CCA 20100891.


MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 11-8038/AF.  In Re Lee W. PAYTON, Jr., Petitioner.  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. 11-0413/NA.  U.S. v. Anthony P. BALLAN.  CCA 201000242.

No. 11-0519/NA.  U.S. v. Brandon T. GATEWOOD.  CCA 201000142.

No. 11-0563/MC.  U.S. v. Anthony J. SANDERS.  CCA 201000522.

No. 11-0564/MC.  U.S. v. Bradley A. MORALES.  CCA 201000057.

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Lieutenant Ryan Santicola to withdraw from representation as Appellate Defense Counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellants.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are granted.

 

No. 11-0568/AR.  U.S. v. John D. BOOTH.  CCA 20080564.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including July 7, 2011.

 

No. 11-0571/AR.  U.S. v. Darius G. CUNNINGHAM.  CCA 20080848.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including July 8, 2011.

 

No. 11-6006/AF.  U.S. v. Steven A. DANYLO.  CCA 2010-15.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2006), Appellee’s motion to file an answer to the supplement out of time, Appellant’s motion to attach documents, and Appellee’s motion to dismiss, it is ordered that the motion to file an answer out of time is hereby granted; that the motion to attach documents is hereby denied; that the petition for grant of review is hereby denied without prejudice to Appellant raising the issues in the course of direct review; and that the motion to dismiss is hereby denied as moot.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0123/AR.  U.S. v. Bryant K. MARSH.  CCA 20080382.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-191

Friday, June 17, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0487/AR.  U.S. v. Genaro HERNANDEZ.  CCA 20100471.

No. 11-0493/AF.  U.S. v. Eric W. PARKER.  CCA 37482.

No. 11-0503/AR.  U.S. v. Austin R. TAYLOR.  CCA 20100751.

No. 11-0505/AR.  U.S. v. Edward N. SORIANO.  CCA 20090836.

No. 11-0506/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffrey A. DANIELS.  CCA 20091071.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0568/AR.  U.S. v. John D. BOOTH.  CCA 20080564.

No. 11-0569/AR.  U.S. v. Elijah M. HAWK.  CCA 20100588.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0143/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron R. STANLEY.  CCA 20050703.  Appellee's motion for leave to file supplement to the joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 11-0231/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER, Jr.  CCA 19961044. Appellee's motion for leave to file a supplemental joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 11-0567/AR.  U.S. v. Eric L. NORDIN.  CCA 20090044.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including July 6, 2011.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-6004/MC.  U.S. v. Caleb P. HOHMAN.  CCA 201000563.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-190

Thursday, June 16, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0565/NA.  U.S. v. Jack C. RUSCITTO.  CCA 201100023.

No. 11-0566/MC.  U.S. v. Alan D. SOBENES.  CCA 201000381.

No. 11-0567/AR.  U.S. v. Eric L. NORDIN.  CCA 20090044.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-189

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0563/MC.  U.S. v. Anthony J. SANDERS.  CCA 201000522.

No. 11-0564/MC.  U.S. v. Bradley A. MORALES.  CCA 201000057.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-188

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-5004/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip L. PIERCE.  CCA 20080009.  Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date, on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S INSTRUCTION ON 18 U.S.C. § 2422(B), WHICH INSTRUCTION USED THE TERM “INTERNET” INSTEAD OF “ANY FACILITY OR MEANS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE,” WAS ERRONEOUS.

 

On May 23, 2011, the Court issued an order under Docket No. 11-0239/AR, granting Appellant’s petition for grant of review.Appellant will file a brief and Joint Appendix on the granted issue, the specified issue and the issue certified by the Judge Advocate General on or before July 14, 2011.  Appellee’s brief will be filed no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant’s brief.  Appellant may file a reply no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee’s brief.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0479/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy P. KARSTENS.  CCA 20100832.

No. 11-0489/AR.  U.S. v. Scott J. MAXFIELD.  CCA 20100804.

No. 11-0490/AR.  U.S. v. Kurt J. GULLENS.  CCA 20100428.

No. 11-0491/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth B. OWENS.  CCA 20100636.

No. 11-0492/AR.  U.S. v. Bryson E. LOWE.  CCA 20100913.

No. 11-0498/AR.  U.S. v. Trina L. TAYLOR.  CCA 20100603.

No. 11-0500/AR.  U.S. v. Jacob M. SANSONE.  CCA 20100881.

No. 11-0501/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick A. CASTILLO.  CCA 20100576.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0560/AR.  U.S. v. John A. WHITE.  CCA 20100222.

No. 11-0561/AR.  U.S. v. Daylan A. LEWIE.  CCA 20100912.

No. 11-0562/AR.  U.S. v. Tywaun M. DEEDS.  CCA 20100452.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-5004/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip L. PIERCE.  CCA 20080009.  On consideration of Appellee's motion for a consolidated briefing schedule, and in view of the fact that a consolidated briefing schedule was contained in this Court’s docketing notice issued on this date, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied as moot.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-187

Monday, June 13, 2011

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0431/AR.  U.S. v. Clyde E. CALLWOOD.  CCA 20080577.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHERE HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ACTIONS DURING THE PRETRIAL HEARING LED DIRECTLY TO APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND WHERE HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED AT TRIAL TO CALL TWO WITNESSES WHO WOULD HAVE UNDERMINED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S KEY WITNESSES.

 

and on the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES. SEE UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 69. M.J. 490 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further appellate inquiry and consideration on the granted and specified issues.  The Court of Criminal Appeals will obtain affidavits from the civilian and military trial defense counsel relating to the assigned issue.  If the court, after reviewing the affidavits, determines that a fact-finding hearing is necessary, see United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 1997), that court shall order a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967).  Once the necessary information is obtained, the court will conduct its Article 66(c), UCMJ, review.  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, shall apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0431/AR.  U.S. v. Clyde E. CALLWOOD.  CCA 20080577.  [See also APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS on this date.]

 

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0559/NA.  U.S. v. Jordan J. ESCOCHEASANCHEZ.  CCA 201000093.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0034/AF.  U.S. v. Jonathan G. WEEKS.  CCA S31625.

No. 11-0165/AF.  U.S. v. Daniel A. ZARBATANY, Jr.  CCA 37448.

No. 11-6002/AF.  U.S. v. Rory J. SCHUBER.  CCA 2010-14.  

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Major Reggie D. Yager to withdraw as Appellate Defense Counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellants.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 11-0558/AR.  U.S. v. Alvaro GARCIA, Jr.  CCA 20080839.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to June 30, 2011.

 

No. 11-8027/NA.  In Re Justin H. MCMURRIN, Petitioner v. The Honorable Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, and Commnanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston , Respondents.  On consideration of the motion of the Respondents for a second enlargement of time to file a response to the order to show cause, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, up to and including June 23, 2011.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-186

Friday, June 10, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0557/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph D. HURDLE.  CCA 20100404.

No. 11-0558/AR.  U.S. v. Alvaro GARCIA, Jr.  CCA 20080839.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-6007/AR.  U.S. v. Demetrice K. BAKER.  CCA 20100841.  Appellee's motion for leave to attach a complete copy of Appellate Exhibit XIV to the record of trial granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-185

Thursday, June 9, 2011

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0361/AR.  U.S. v. Mark C. CHARTIER.  CCA 20100312.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that Appellant raises for the first time on appeal an issue that was not presented to the lower court that requires factfinding.  In accordance with C.A.A.F. R. 30A, it is appropriate for the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider this issue initially.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE CONVENING AUTHORITY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A MATERIAL TERM OF THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT BY FAILING TO WAIVE AUTOMATIC FORFEITURES.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2006).  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, will apply.   [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0361/AR. U.S. v. Mark C. CHARTIER. CCA 20100312. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0385/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew B. MORRISON.  CCA 20090279.

No. 11-0484/AR.  U.S. v. Randall L. WHITE.  CCA 20100299.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0282/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE.  CCA 20090166.  Appellee's motion to file a supplemental joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 11-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Brent A. CAMPBELL.  CCA 37460.

 

No. 11-0534/AF.  U.S. v. William S. BRYANT.  CCA 37619.  On consideration of the motions filed by Major Reggie D. Yager to withdraw as Appellate Defense Counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellants.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 11-0516/AR.  U.S. v. Maurice K. ROBINS.  CCA 20090996.  Appellant's motion to attach additional matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), set forth in Appendix C is hereby granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-184

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0554/AR.  U.S. v. Terry D. RORRO.  CCA 20100750.

No. 11-0555/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas A. OLSON.  CCA 20090252.

No. 11-0556/AR.  U.S. v. Mark GILLIAM.  CCA 20090907.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-183

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0464/NA.  U.S. v. Patrick S. KIMBELL.  CCA 201000348.

No. 11-0478/NA.  U.S. v. Antony M. DREIBELBEIS.  CCA 201000269.

No. 11-0480/AF.  U.S. v. Kenny H.K. KIMIZUKA.  CCA S31823.

No. 11-0482/AF.  U.S. v. Benjamin N. CHATMAN.  CCA S31820.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0553/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. HARTFIELD.  CCA 20100730.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-182

Monday, June 6, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0458/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas C. TOWELL.  CCA 20090964.

No. 11-0470/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel J. ACKLEY.  CCA 20100660.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0548/AR.  U.S. v. Jacob A. HART.  CCA 20100803.

No. 11-0549/AR.  U.S. v. Nathan T. YOUNG.  CCA 20100372.

No. 11-0550/AR.  U.S. v. David MALONE, Jr.  CCA 20100356.

No. 11-0551/CG.  U.S. v. Sean I. ZOBITZ.  CCA 1341.

No. 11-0552/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron L. WILSON.  CCA 20090796.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-181

Friday, June 3, 2011

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0450/AR. U.S. v. Beau A. GRAMZ. CCA 20100594. 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, that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.* [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect the UCMJ article number as 112a.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0437/MC. U.S. v. Royan R. ROSCHE. CCA 201000461. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0450/AR. U.S. v. Beau A. GRAMZ. CCA 20100594. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0547/AR. U.S. v. Ivan D. GOINGS. CCA 20080602.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-8027/NA. U.S. v. Justin H. MCMURRIN. CCA . Respondent's Government motion for enlargement of time to file response to petition for extraordinary relief granted.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-0317/NA. U.S. v. William R. SAVALA. CCA 200800818.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-180

Thursday, June 2, 2011

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-6003/AR.  U.S. v. Michael A. PRINCE.  CCA 20100939.  On further consideration of the certified issue, 69 M.J. 499 (C.A.A.F. 2011), the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we note that when acting on interlocutory appeals under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2006), we may only act with respect to matters of law.  United States v. Cossio, 64 M.J. 254, 256 (C.A.A.F. 2007); Article 67(c), UCMJ.  To overturn a military judge’s evidentiary ruling on appeal, there must be a showing that the challenged ruling was an abuse of discretion.  United States v. Taylor , 53 M.J. 195, 199 (C.A.A.F. 2000).  In view of the evidence of record, the military judge did not err as a matter of law.  Accordingly, the certified issue is answered in the negative and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Brent A. CAMPBELL.  CCA 37460.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED, AFTER FINDING ALL THREE CHARGES AROSE OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION AND WERE PART OF THE SAME IMPULSE, BY MERGING THEM FOR SENTENCING RATHER THAN DISMISSING THEM.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0413/NA.  U.S. v. Anthony P. BALLAN.  CCA 201000242.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.       WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA , MILLER, AND JONES.

 

II.       ALTHOUGH THE CRIME OF INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD TO WHICH APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED CRIME OF RAPE OF A CHILD AND THUS HAD NOT BEEN FORMALLY REFERRED TO TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY, WHETHER APPELLANT WAIVED SUCH IRREGULARITY BY PLEADING GUILTY UNDER A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT TO INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, WHERE NEITHER THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT NOR APPELLANT'S PLEA AT ARRAIGNMENT EXPRESSLY SET FORTH EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT FOR AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION, BUT BOTH ELEMENTS WERE DISCUSSED AND ADMITTED DURING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY.

 

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

 

PETITION FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0546/AR.  U.S. v. Stephen R. RHOTEN.  CCA 20080971.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8037/AF.  In re Keith M. HALL, Petitioner, v. Commander Robert STOVER, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar , California and the United States , Respondents.  Petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition for relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, writ of mandamus as moot is granted.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-179

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0468/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew M. CULVER.  CCA 20100525.

No. 11-0469/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy S. EDGER.  CCA 20100673.

No. 11-0471/AR.  U.S. v. Paul M. LOMPARSKI.  CCA 20100783.

No. 11-0472/AR.  U.S. v. Michael D. BURROUGH.  CCA 20100341.

No. 11-0473/AR.  U.S. v. Gary L. MATHENEY.  CCA 20100779.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0542/AR.  U.S. v. Jordan T. GILLIAM.  CCA 20100007.

No. 11-0543/AR.  U.S. v. Noel L. VELORIA.  CCA 20090483.

No. 11-0544/AR.  U.S. v. Mark S. DEL NEGRO, Jr.  CCA 20091085.

No. 11-0545/AR.  U.S. v. Haskell L. CHURCH.  CCA 20090744.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8017/AR.  In Re Staff Sergeant Daniel GASKINS, USA , Petitioner, vs. Colonel John B. HOFFMAN, USA , et al., Respondents.  CCA 20080132.  On further consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to raising the issue in the normal course of trial or appellate review.

 

Misc. No. 11-8023/AR.  Adam WINFIELD, Petitioner, vs. Kwasi HAWKS, Lieutenant Colonel , USA , Military Judge, the U.S. Army, and the United States, Respondents.  CCA 20110289.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0538/NA.  U.S. v. Wesley R. VANDERWYST.  CCA 201000452.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement is granted up to and including June 20, 2011.

 

No. 11-8023/AR.  U.S. v. Adam WINFIELD.  CCA 20110289.  Petitioner's motion for a stay of proceedings is denied.

 

No. 10-0178/AF.  U.S. v. William J. ST BLANC, Jr.  CCA 37206.  The Court’s Order of May 17, 2011, is hereby vacated, and upon further consideration of the granted issue (69 M.J. 247) in light of United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2011), it is ordered that Appellant and Appellee file additional briefs addressing Beaty and whether Appellant waived his right to a trial by court members based on the misapprehension of the maximum punishment.  Appellant’s brief shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this order.  Appellee’s brief shall be filed within 30 days of the filing of Appellant’s brief.  Appellant may file a reply within 10 days of the filing of Appellee’s brief.