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

BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
(Last Updated 10/1/2024)

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 when another disposition has been published.

See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.

---

Monday, September 30, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0208/AF. U.S. v. Michael A. Valentin-Andino. CCA 40185. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of Appellant's allegations that the Court of Criminal Appeals provided meaningless relief for unreasonable post-trial delay, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER "APPROPRIATE RELIEF" FOR EXCESSIVE POST-TRIAL DELAY UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, ALSO REQUIRES "MEANINGFUL RELIEF".

 

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO AWARD "MEANINGFUL RELIEF" DESPITE FINDING THAT RELIEF WAS WARRANTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, AND UNITED STATES v. TARDIF, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002), FOR UNREASONABLE POST-TRIAL DELAY.

 

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

---

Friday, September 27, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0196/NA. U.S. v. Edmond A. Maebane III. CCA 202200228. 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 granted on the following issue:

 

DOES AN ACCUSED HAVE A SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A RECORDED THIRD PARTY'S CONFESSION TO THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE ACCUSED IS ON TRIAL?

 

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

---

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0004/SF. U.S. v. Devin W. Johnson. CCA 40257. On further consideration of the granted issues, 84 M.J. 343 (C.A.A.F. 2024), and in view of United States v. Williams, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 5, 2024), it is ordered that the grant of review of issues in the Court's order of March 29, 2024, is vacated, and said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I.  WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. 

 

II.  WHETHER REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THE COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DOCTRINES.  SEE B.M. v. UNITED STATES, 84 M.J. 314, 317 (C.A.A.F. 2024) (DETAILING THIS COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE AND CONTROVERSY DOCTRINES).

 

III.  AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

 

Appellant's brief (Issues I and II only)    Appellee's brief    Appellant's reply brief

---

Friday, September 20, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0134/CG. U.S. v. Andrew J. Shafran. CCA 1480. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

DOES THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II, ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ (PROVIDING SEVERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 21), FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ALLEGE WORDS OF CRIMINALITY?

 

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

---

Thursday, September 19, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0104/AF. U.S. v. Bryce T. Roan. CCA 22033. On consideration of the 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 LOWER COURT'S ERRONEOUS RESOLUTION OF A QUESTION OF LAW -- FINDING THAT WITHHELD EVIDENCE WAS IMMATERIAL AND THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT -- VIOLATED BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

 

II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S ERRONEOUS RESOLUTION OF A QUESTION OF LAW -- FINDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 701(A)(6) -- VIOLATED BINDING PRECEDENT SET BY THIS COURT.

 

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

---

Wednesday, September 11, 2024

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0147/AR. U.S. v. Ryan C. Thomas. CCA 20210662. 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 MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S BATSON CHALLENGE.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before October 11, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief.

 

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

 

No. 24-0175/AF. U.S. v. Daniel R. Csiti. CCA 40386. On consideration of the 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 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER A CONVICTION IS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE AH WAS CAPABLE OF CONSENTING – AND DID CONSENT – TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH APPELLANT.

 

III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ.

 

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

---

Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0206/AF. U.S. v. Dennis A. George, Jr. CCA 40397. On consideration of the 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 APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PROVE THE ALLEGED OVERT ACT.

 

II.  WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED OF A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE.

 

III.  WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

 

Appellant's brief (Issue I only)       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Thursday, August 29, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0172/AR. U.S. v. Rodrigo L. Urieta. CCA 20220432. 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 MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST A MEMBER WHO BELIEVED A SOLDIER WHO HIRED A CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIS DEFENSE.

 

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

---

Thursday, August 15, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0138/MC. U.S. v. Juan I. Campos. CCA 202200246. 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 granted on the following issue:

 

DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, ALLEGATIONS OF ADDITIONAL MISCONDUCT IN THE UNSWORN VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT?

 

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

---

Friday, July 19, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. 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 granted on the following issues:

 

I. DID THE LOWER COURT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S REMAND ORDER?

 

II. DID APPELLANT SUFFER PREJUDICE FROM THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ERRONEOUS CONTINUANCE DENIAL?

 

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

---

Friday, June 14, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0089/AF. U.S. v. Nikolas S. Casillas. CCA 40302. On consideration of the 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 ARTICLE 120(b)(2) AND (g)(7), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920(b)(2) AND (g)(7), ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE THEY FAIL TO PUT DEFENDANTS ON FAIR NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THEM.

 

II. AS APPLIED, WHETHER ARTICLE 120(b)(2) AND (g)(7), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920(b)(2) AND (g)(7), GAVE APPELLANT CONSTITUTIONAL FAIR NOTICE WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE DENIED DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR A TAILORED JURY INSTRUCTION.

 

III. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHOUT CONSENT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.

 

IV. IN A SEXUAL ASSAULT TRIAL, DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED THE ACCUSED'S CHALLENGE FOR ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS FOR A MEMBER WHOSE WIFE HAD BEEN RAPED.

 

V. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

 

VI. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN HE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022)).

 

Appellant's brief (Issues I - IV only)    Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief