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

BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
(Last Updated 9/22/2026)

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, September 21, 2026

Certificate for Review

 

No. 26-0300/AF. United States, Appellant. v. Jennifer Y. Galvin, Appellee. CCA 2026-01. 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 issue:

 

Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding that the convening authority referred specification 1 of the charge, a violation of Article 92, UCMJ, to appellee's court-martial without authority, because the Office of Special Trial Counsel had previously deferred prosecuting the underlying conduct as a covered offense?

 

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

 

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0238/AR. U.S. v. Richard K. Wilcoxson. CCA 20240104. 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 issue:

 

Whether the sentence is void because the court-martial lacked jurisdiction to impose a segmented sentence.

 

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

---

Thursday, September 10, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0224/AF. U.S. v. Giorgio A. Szabo. CCA 40690. 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 granted on the following issue:

 

Whether the military judge abused her discretion when she overruled the defense's objection and allowed the complainant to recite multiple allegations of uncharged misconduct during her RCM 1001(c) unsworn statement.

 

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

---

Wednesday, September 9, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0236/AR. U.S. v. Matthew W. Martin. CCA 20250030. 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 issue:

 

Whether Appellant's court-martial had jurisdiction after an interloper was improperly impaneled.

 

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

---

Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0237/AF. U.S. v. Collyn L. Lawrence. CCA 24064. 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 granted on the following issues:

 

I. Whether the permissive inference is unconstitutional for marijuana cases, both facially and as applied to this case.

 

II. Whether Appellant's conviction for marijuana use is legally insufficient.

 

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

---

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0225/AR. U.S. v. Jonathan R. Pinkerton. CCA 20240353. 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 issue:

 

Whether Appellant's right to confrontation was violated with the admission of JP's forensic interview.

 

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

---

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Certificate for Review

 

No. 26-0223/MC. United States, Appellant v. Joel Gonzalez, Appellee. CCA 202500333. 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 on this date on the following issue:

 

Did the lower court err finding the sentence plainly unreasonable, where the sentence was bargained for and within parameters and where trial counsel chose not to exercise discretion under R.C.M. 1109 to issue a substantial assistance letter?

 

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

---

Monday, December 29, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 26-0077/AF. U.S. v. Vidarr Slayton. CCA 40583. 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. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY FINDING APPELLEE'S CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT, IN PART, BASED ON MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT, WHEN

APPELLEE DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ARGUE MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT AS A SPECIFIC DEFICIENCY IN PROOF IN HIS APPEAL?

 

II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN APPLYING UNITED STATES v. MENDOZA, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024) TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT?

 

III. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DEFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE?

 

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