YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2022 TERM > FEBRUARY 2023

United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001

---

Tuesday, February 7, 2023

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Mellodee L. Behunin	No. 22-0276/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Matthew L. Blyth, USAF (brief) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Olivia Brooke Hoff, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM convictions for fraudulent enlistment, making a false official statement, and wrongful use of a controlled substance. Granted issues are: I. Appellant and CM faced separate courts-martial for, inter alia, joint use of controlled substances. Unlike Appellant, CM received no confinement or punitive discharge for essentially the same misconduct. Did the Air force court misapply United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F. 1999) when it held that CM's and Appellant's cases were not closely-related cases whose sentences required comparison? II. Whether extra-record results of other courts-martial that were not part of the record of trial before Appellant's case was docketed at the CCA may be considered during its Article 66, UCMJ, review.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Byunggu Kim	No. 22-0234/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: CPT Carol K. Rim, JA, USA (brief) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Joshua A. Hartsell, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for committing a lewd act, making an illegal recording, assault consummated by battery, and indecent conduct. Granted issues are: I. Whether a guilty plea to an offense waives a challenge that the conduct is not a cognizable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. II. Whether, in this case, internet search queries for "drugged sleep" and "rape sleep" are indecent conduct; in the alternative, whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to abide by the heightened plea inquiry requirements under United States v. Hartman, 69 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Tuesday, February 21, 2023

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Ethan R. Shields	No. 22-0279/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Aidan J. Stark, USN (brief) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  CAPT Tyler W. Blair, USMC (brief)

Case Summary: GCM convictions for attempted indecent recording, use of a controlled substance, indecent exposure and visual recording, and viewing child pornography. Granted issue is where the search authorization only sought materials from one date, but the government looked at images irrespective of that date, did the military judge abuse his discretion by finding the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Ashraf S. Warda	No. 22-0282/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esq. (brief) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Andrew M. Hopkins, JA, USA (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Case Summary: GCM conviction for rape. Granted issues are: I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying the motion to dismiss or abate the proceedings where the unavailable evidence was of such central importance that it was essential to a fair trial, there was no adequate substitute for the unavailable evidence, the unavailable evidence was not appellant's fault, and the military judge varied from the prescribed remedy under RCM 703(f)(2). II. Whether Appellant was deprived of his right to a unanimous verdict as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Fifth Amendment's Right to Equal Protection.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument on Issue I.