YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE

BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
(Last Updated 11/26/2025)

In descending order, the following cases have been granted by this Court and ordered to file briefs. These cases have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Links to the briefs are provided soon after the briefs have been filed at this Court. Cases will be removed when a hearing date has been scheduled -- see Hearing Calendar or Archived Hearing Calendars-- or when summary disposition order has been published in the daily journal.

See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.

---

Monday, October 20, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 26-0014/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S SEPARATE CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 128b(1) AND 128b(5), UCMJ MULTIPLICIOUS.

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Wednesday, October 16, 2025

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 25-0220/NA. U.S. v. Eric C. Babbitt. CCA 202300286. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA'S REQUEST TO THE NAVY TO KEEP APPELLANT CONFINED IN VIRGINIA SO THAT THE COMMONWEALTH COULD RECEIVE CUSTODY OF APPELLANT IN ORDER TO TRY HIM FOR PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES CONSTITUTED A DETAINER, THUS TRIGGERING THE NAVY'S REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ACT.

 

II.  WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY RELYING ON AN IRRELEVANT CAPIAS WARRANT THAT IS NOT IN THE RECORD TO CONCLUDE THE NAVY DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ACT.

 

III. WHETHER THE SENTENCE INTERRUPTION PROVISION OF ARTICLE 14, UCMJ, CAN BE INVOKED AFTER A DETAINER HAS BEEN FILED.

 

IV. IF THE NAVY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ACT, WHAT REMEDY IS THIS COURT AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE APPELLANT?

 

Supplement brief       No reply brief

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

 

No. 25-0238/AF. U.S. v. Ann R. Marin Perez. CCA S32771. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED A CONVICTION THROUGH EXCEPTIONS AND SUBSTITUTIONS AFTER FINDING THAT "THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA TO THE SPECIFICATION AS DRAFTED."

 

Supplement brief       No reply brief

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 25-0257/AF. United States, Appellant. v. Brandon B. Hunt, Appellee. CCA 40563. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

 

I. CAN A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FIND A CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866 BASED ON A MATTER NOT RAISED AS A "DEFICIENCY IN PROOF" BY THE APPELLANT?

 

II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY FINDING APPELLEE'S CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT BASED ON MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT, WHEN APPELLEE DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ARGUE MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT AS A DEFICIENCY IN PROOF IN HIS APPEAL?

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 25-0244/AR. United States, Appellant. v. Isac D. Mendoza, Appellee. CCA 20210647. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22, on this date on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION?

 

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN FINDING THAT THE CONVICTION WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT?

 

III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN APPLYING A "MAINLY BUT ALONGSIDE OTHER EVIDENCE" FRAMEWORK TO FIND APPELLANT'S CONVICTION LEGALLY SUFFICIENT?

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

 

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 25-0181/AR. U.S. v. Donte M. Brown. CCA 20230168. 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 granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE INCORRECTLY ADMITTED TWO SUPPOSED PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY MISSTATING THE LAW, APPLYING BOTH SUBSECTIONS IN VIOLATION OF AYALA/FINCH, AND FAILING TO IDENTIFY A STATEMENT THAT PREDATED THE CLEAR AND PERSISTENT MOTIVE TO FABRICATE PURSUED BY APPELLANT.

 

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THIS COURT'S PLAIN LANGUAGE IN AYALA/FINCH AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS WERE RELEVANT TO REHABILITATE THE WITNESS UNDER MRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) BEYOND MERE REPETITION.

 

III. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE PIERRE STANDARD FROM FEDERAL COURTS FOR PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS DEFINING "RELEVANT TO REHABILITATE."

 

Supplement brief       No reply brief

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 25-0243/MC. United States, Appellant. v. Anderson A. Ixcolgonzalez, Appellee. CCA 202400253. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22, together with a motion to file the brief separately under Rule 30, on this date on the following issues:

 

I. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR SUPPRESSING DIGITAL DEVICE EVIDENCE BECAUSE AUTHORIZATION DID NOT USE "AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS THE GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE AND CIRCUMSTANCES" ALLOWED - WHEN RICHARDS REQUIRES ONLY ENOUGH TO PREVENT A SEARCH CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CRIME BEING INVESTIGATED, AND THE AUTHORIZATION SPECIFIED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CRIMES AND EVIDENCE OF THOSE CRIMES?

 

II. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE AND LOWER COURT ERR FINDING THAT GOOD FAITH DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE AUTHORIZATION DID NOT SPECIFY LOCATIONS TO BE SEARCHED INSIDE THE DIGITAL DEVICES, BASING THAT FINDING ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHERE "COMPUTER FILES MAY BE MANIPULATED TO HIDE THEIR TRUE CONTENTS," AND WHERE THE RULE AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH WAS THAT THE AUTHORIZATION WAS SUFFICIENT AND THE AFFIDAVIT WAS INCORPORATED?

 

III. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR HOLDING THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT INCORPORATED WHERE THE AUTHORIZATION TWICE REFERENCED THE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER, AND WHERE MIL. R. EVID. 315 ONLY REQUIRES STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE "COMMUNICATED," BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE WORDS OF INCORPORATION?

 

IV. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE FOUND THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT WAS SUFFICIENTLY CULPABLE SUCH THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WOULD MEANINGFULLY DETER IT?

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Friday, May 30, 2025

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 25-0081/AR. U.S. v. Jerome J. Forrest. CCA 20200715. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN APPELLATE JUDGE ON TERMINAL LEAVE IMPERMISSIBLY PARTICIPATED IN A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

 

* Judge Maggs is recused and did not participate.

 

Supplement brief       Answer brief