YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > GRANTS AND DISPOSITIONS

 


NEW GRANTS AND SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS      
(Last Updated 2/24/24)

Cases that have been decided will be removed from this page at the end of the term.
See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.


Subscribe to this feed Subscribe to this feed for updates on new grants and dispositions. Some browsers may need an add-on extension to read rss feeds. Here are the extension links for Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome. Copy link from the above feed icon and paste to rss reader extension to subscribe to the feed.




Thursday, February 22, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0069/AF. U.S. v. Bradley D. Lampkins. CCA 40135. 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 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.

 

II. 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 APPELLANT WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022)).

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25




Friday, February 16, 2024

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0054/AR. Robert M. Lundsten, Petitioner v. United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent and United States, Real Party In Interest. CCA 20220260. On further consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, we conclude that United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.9(d) conflicts with Rule for Courts-Martial 1113 and is therefore unenforceable. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition is granted, and the stay of proceedings granted on January 11, 2024, is lifted.

 

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0049/AF. U.S. v. S'hun R. Maymi. CCA 40332. 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 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.

 

II. 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 APPELLANT WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022)).

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, February 12, 2024

Certificate for Review

 

No. 24-0093/MC. United States, Appellant v. Brandon K. Flanner, Appellee. CCA 202300134. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and supporting brief were filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:

 

DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE SUPPRESSED APPELLEE'S NON-CUSTODIAL, PRE-PREFERRAL, SELF-SCHEDULED INTERVIEW WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IN WHICH APPELLEE WAIVED THE RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND TO REMAIN SILENT?

 

Appellee will file an answer under Rule 22(b) on or before the 13th day of March, 2024.




Thursday, February 1, 2024

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0063/AR. U.S. v. Justin M. Scott. CCA 20220450. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the opinion of that court fails to acknowledge that it had considered the issue personally asserted by Appellant and its disposition, as required by United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431, 436 (C.M.A. 1982). Under these circumstances, the record must be returned to the court below so that it may comply with Grostefon. See United States v. Walker, 36 M.J. 62 (C.M.A. 1992). Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONSIDER APPELLANT'S ONE MATTER SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES v. GROSTEFON, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).

 

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 review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2018).




Monday, January 29, 2024

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0033/AF. Gregory P. Banker, Appellant v. United States. CCA 2022-01. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied.




Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0015/AR. U.S. v. Jaheemee J. Williams. CCA 20230048. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE MODIFICATION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT MADE BY THE ARMY COURT IN CHANGING BLOCK 32 (HAS THE ACCUSED BEEN CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)?) FROM "NO" AS ENTERED BY THE MILITARY JUDGE IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL "YES" IN THE STATEMENT OF TRIAL RESULTS.

 

II.  WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY ASSERTING THAT APPELLANT HAS A QUALIFYING CONVICTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before 23 February, 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.




Thursday, January 18, 2024

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0078/AR. In re Carrera R. Anderson. CCA 20180540. Notice is given that a petition for extraordinary relief was filed on December 4, 2023, and placed on the docket this 18th day of January 2024. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.




Friday, January 12, 2024

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0035/AR. Sergio A. Reyes-Lesmes, Appellant v. United States, and Commander (Warden) Joint Midwest Regional Confinement Facility, Ex Officio, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellees. CCA 20230418. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.




Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0239/NA. U.S. v. Rodney D. Harvey. CCA 202200040. 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 issue:

 

DID THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRET AND APPLY THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(b), UCMJ?

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before February 9, 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.




Thursday, January 4, 2024

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 24-0048/AR. Robert L. Barnett v. U.S. CCA 20190709. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition and Appellant's motion to file a supplemental brief, it is ordered that the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and that the motion is denied as moot.

 

No. 24-0050/AR. Rene D. Alfaro v. Judges of the CCA. CCA 20220282. Petitioner has filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. He asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals to permit military appellate defense counsel to transmit sealed materials in the record of trial – with the exception of Item Y – to his civilian appellate defense counsel, who now lives in Israel. He also asks this Court to issue a writ of prohibition ordering the same court not to enforce Army Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 6.9 in any matter before that court.

 

This Court previously issued a writ of mandamus, except for Item Y, providing for access to the sealed materials. Alfaro v. Judges of United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, No. 23-0258/AR (C.A.A.F. Oct. 24, 2023)(sum. disp.). Next, Petitioner moved the lower court for an order to copy and transmit the sealed items to his civilian counsel. CCA Motion for Leave to Transmit Sealed Materials of 22 Nov 2023. The lower court summarily denied the motion.

 

Petitioner subsequently submitted his most recent writ petition to this Court seeking enforcement of the writ of mandamus. This Court responded by issuing an order to the government to answer the petition and to show cause why a military appellate defense counsel has not been detailed to represent Petitioner. Alfaro v. Judges of United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, No. 24-0050/AR (C.A.A.F. Dec. 18, 2023)(order).

In response to that order, Respondent has filed an answer. On consideration of all pleadings of record, we note that military appellate defense counsel has been detailed to represent Petitioner before the lower court. We further note that technological means exist whereby the sealed materials may be securely transmitted or shared virtually with civilian appellate defense counsel.

 

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for a writ of mandamus is granted.

 

Without further delay, the lower court shall permit and facilitate the military counsel to securely transmit or virtually share the sealed materials – except for Item Y – with civilian counsel.

 

The petition for a writ of prohibition as to A.C.C.A. R. 6.9 is denied without prejudice to Petitioner's right to raise the matters asserted during the course of normal appellate review.




Wednesday, January 3, 2024

Petition for Reconsideration Granted

 

No. 22-0249/CG. U.S. v. Fernando M. Brown. CCA 001-69-21. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration, it is ordered upon consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's opinion issued on October 23, 2023, United States v. Brown, __ M.J. __, (C.A.A.F. Oct. 23, 2023), that the petition for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part, that the Court's judgment is vacated, and that no additional filings are authorized. Further action on the case shall be held in abeyance pending a new decision issued by the Court.




Tuesday, December 26, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0011/MC. U.S. v. Sean M. Swisher. CCA 202100311. 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 LOWER COURT ERR BY APPLYING THE WRONG LEGAL STANDARD TO ITS SENTENCE APPROPRIATENESS ANALYSIS?

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before January 26, 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.




Thursday, December 21, 2023

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0036/AR. U.S. v. Joel Y. Easter. CCA 20220459. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that the motion is hereby granted; and that the petition is hereby dismissed.




Monday, December 18, 2023

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 24-0060/AF. U.S. v. Martin Akerman. Notice is hereby given that a request for formal acknowledgement from this Court regarding the exhaustion of all available military remedies was filed on December 11, 2023, and placed on the docket this 18th day of December 2023. Petitioner has not presented any basis to believe that he was ever charged with any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said request is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and that no further filings will be accepted or docketed by this Court in this matter.




Wednesday, November 22, 2023

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

 

No. 23-0249/AR. U.S. v. David W. Carter, Jr. CCA 20200445. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review and Appellant's motion to stay proceedings, it is ordered that Appellee's motion to dismiss is granted; the petition for grant of review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and Appellant's motion to stay proceedings is denied as moot.




Monday, November 13, 2023

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 23-0257/AF. In re Humphrey Daniels III. CCA 39407. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus, or other extraordinary relief, and petitioner's motion to file pro se, it is ordered that the motion to file pro se is denied; and that the petition is hereby dismissed as untimely.

 

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0002/AR. U.S. v. Allan L. Armstrong. CCA 20210644. 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 THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DEPARTURE FROM IMPARTIALITY DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before December 13, 2023; 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.




Thursday, November 2, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0224/AF. U.S. v. Charles S. Nestor. CCA 40250. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decisions of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER UNITED STATES v. PHILLIPS, 70 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2011) WAS WRONGLY DECIDED, AND UNDER A STARE DECISIS ANALYSIS, SHOULD BE OVERRULED. IF SO, SHOULD APPELLANT'S REMAINING CONVICTION BE SET ASIDE AND DISMISSED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE TERMINAL ELEMENT?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, November 1, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0245/AF. U.S. v. Ryan Parino-Ramcharan. CCA 40171. 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 issue:

 

WHETHER THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AND THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before December 1, 2023, 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.




Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

 

No. 23-0258/AR. Rene D. Alfaro, Petitioner v. Judges of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent. CCA 2022-14. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that the petition is granted, except as it pertains to Item Y.




Friday, October 20, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0219/AF. U.S. v. DeShaun L. Wells. CCA 40222. 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 issue:

 

IS APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR A CLAUSE 2, ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AS TO THE TERMINAL ELEMENT?

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before November 20, 2023. 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.




Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0210/AR. U.S. v. Isac D. Mendoza. CCA 20210647. 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 CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHOUT CONSENT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before November 13, 2023; 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.




Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0215/CG. U.S. v. Mark J. Grijalva. CCA 1482. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE UNENUMERATED ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSE CHARGED IN SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE III IS PREEMPTED BY ARTICLE 117a, UCMJ, WHICH CONGRESS ENACTED TO ADDRESS THE WRONGFUL BROADCAST OR DISTRIBUTION OF INTIMATE VISUAL IMAGES.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before November 3, 2023; 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.




Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0204/MC. U.S. v. Thomas H. Tapp. CCA 202100299. 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:

 

WAS APPELLANT DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE?

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before October 27, 2023; 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.

 

No. 23-0225/AR. U.S. v. Michael L. Wilson. CCA 20210276. 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 COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ADMITTING APPELLANT'S NOTEBOOK UNDER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 404(b).

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before October 27, 2023; 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.




Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Certificate for Review

 

No. 23-0250/AF. H.V.Z v. U.S. & Fewell. CCA 2023-03. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Article 6b on this date on the following issues:

 

I.  DID THE MILIRARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE DETERMINED THAT H.V.Z.'S DOD HEALTH RECORD WAS IN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL OF MILITARY AUTHORITIES PURSUANT TO RCM 701(a)(2)(A) AND RCM 701(a)(2)(B)?

 

II.  DID THE MILTIARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE DID NOT CONSIDER H.V.Z.'S WRITTEN OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF HER DOD HEALTH RECORD AS HE FOUND SHE DID NOT HAVE STANDING NOR A RIGHT TO BE HEARD?

 

III.  WHETHER H.V.Z. MUST SHOW THE MILITARY JUDGE CLEARLY AND INDISPUTABLY ERRED FOR WRIT TO ISSUE UNDER ARTICLE 6b(e) UCMJ OR SHALL ORDINARY STANDARDS OF APPELLATE REVIEW APPLY?




Wednesday, September 6, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0207/AF. U.S. v. Samuel H. Smith. CCA 40202. 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 issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR BREACH OF PEACE, BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON SPEECH, IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHERE, INTER ALIA, ALL PARTIES AGREE THE CHARGED SPEECH DID NOT CONSTITUTE "FIGHTING WORDS."

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before October 6, 2023; 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.




Wednesday, August 16, 2023

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0165/MC. U.S. v. Bradley M. Metz. CCA 201900089. 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.  WAS APPELLANT A SUSPECT, TRIGGERING ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, WARNINGS?

 

II. DESPITE FINDING APPELLANT WAS ILLEGALLY APPREHENDED, DID THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY APPLY BROWN v. ILLINOIS, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), AND FIND THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ADMITTED FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DERIVED AFTER THE APPREHENSION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE?

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before September 15, 2023; 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.

 

No. 23-0188/AR. U.S. v. Tryvon M. Jones. CCA 20210503. 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 THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ADMITTING APPELLANT'S POST INCIDENT BROWSER HISTORY AS RES GESTAE EVIDENCE.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before September 15, 2023; 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.

 

No. 23-0223/AF. U.S. v. Jeremy J. Stradtmann. CCA 40237. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER RECKLESSNESS IS THE REQUISITE MENS REA TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR THE PRESIDENTIALLY PROMULGATED OFFENSE OF CHILD ENDANGERMENT UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ OF THE 2016 MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before September 15, 2023; 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.




Monday, August 14, 2023

Certificate for Review

 

No. 23-0233/NA. In re B.M., Appellant v. United States, Appellee and Dominic R. Bailey, Real Party In Interest. CCA 202300050 Notice is hereby 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 14th day of August, 2023, on the following issues:

 

I.  M.R.E. 513 GOVERNS THE PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTION AND IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PATIENT RECORDS THAT "PERTAIN TO" COMMUNICATIONS TO A PSYCHOTHERAPIST. THE MILITARY JUDGE APPLIED R.C.M. 703 TO ORDER PRODUCTION AND CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF MAJOR B.M.'S DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY APPLYING THE NARROW SCOPE OF THE M.R.E. 513(A) PRIVILEGE DEFINED IN MELLETTE TO BYPASS THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF M.R.E. 513(E)?

 

II. THE ARMY CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS HELD NO CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTION TO M.R.E. 513 EXISTS. THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS RULED THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED PRODUCTION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS. THE RESULTING DISPARITY IN APPELLATE PRECEDENT PRECLUDES UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE LAW. SHOULD PAYTON-O'BRIEN BE OVERTURNED?

 

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b)(2) in support of said certificate on or before September 13, 2023. Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply no later than 5 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief.




Thursday, July 27, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0085/AF. U.S. v. Jonel H. Guihama. CCA 40039. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY ADMITTING A CONFESSION THAT WAS NOT TRUSTWORTHY BECAUSE IT LACKED SUFFICIENT CORROBORATION.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before August 28, 2023; 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.




Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0206/AF. U.S. v. Ryan M. Palik. CCA 40225. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:

 

THE GOVERNMENT LOST THE ONLY TWO VIDEO-RECORDED STATEMENTS FROM SM, THE COMPLAINING WITNESS FOR EVERY CONVICTED OFFENSE. DID DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY FAILING TO FILE AN RCM 914 MOTION AFTER SM'S TESTIMONY?

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before August 25, 2023; 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.




Thursday, July 20, 2023

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0163/AF. U.S. v. Matthew P. Leipart. CCA 39711. 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 hereby granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR, INTER ALIA, ALLOWING THE MILITARY JUDGE TO CONSIDER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF THE LITIGATED OFFENSES.

 

II.  WHETHER THE TRIAL COUNSEL'S "CLEAR ERROR" IN FINDINGS ARGUMENT— LEVERAGING APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO PROVE HIS GUILT OF THE LITIGATED OFFENSES—WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before August 21, 2023; 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.

 

No. 23-0198/AF. U.S. v. Israel E. Flores. CCA 40294. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SENTENCE APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW FOR SEGMENTED SENTENCING MUST CONSIDER EACH SEGMENTED SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT, OR INSTEAD ONLY THE OVERALL SENTENCE.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before August 21, 2023; 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.




Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0139/NA. U.S. v. Thomas H. Martin. CCA 202100089. 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.   DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT A SERVICEMEMBER'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A PANEL OF MEMBERS AT COURT-MARTIAL?

 

II.  DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY DEFERRING TO A CONVENING AUTHORITY'S CASE-BY-CASE REFERRAL DECISION RATHER THAN AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN OFFENSE IS SERIOUS?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, July 10, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0147/NA. U.S. v. David M. Diaz. CCA 202100090. 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 ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT A SERVICEMEMBER'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A PANEL OF MEMBERS AT COURT-MARTIAL?

 

II.  DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY DEFERRING TO A CONVENING AUTHORITY'S CASE-BY-CASE REFERRAL DECISION RATHER THAN AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN OFFENSE IS SERIOUS?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25




Friday, June 23, 2023

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0107/AR. U.S. v. Ladonies P. Strong. CCA 20200391. 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 Army Court erred when it determined that agents were still "endeavoring to seize" the digital media on Appellant's phone after agents had already seized the phone.

 

II.  Whether Appellant was prejudiced where the MJ failed to instruct the panel in accordance with the plain language of the charge sheet.

 

III. Whether Appellant was deprived of her constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issues I and II only.

 

No. 23-0140/NA. U.S. v. Thomas L. Wheeler. CCA 202100091. 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 ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT A SERVICEMEMBER'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A PANEL OF MEMBERS AT COURT-MARTIAL?

 

II.  DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY DEFERRING TO A CONVENING AUTHORITY'S CASE-BY-CASE REFERRAL DECISION RATHER THAN AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN OFFENSE IS SERIOUS?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 23-0162/AF. U.S. v. Kristopher D. Cole. CCA 40189. 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 petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE MISAPPREHENDED THE OFFENSE IN SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE II FOR WHICH HE SENTENCED APPELLANT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, May 1, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0066/AF. U.S. v. Alexander L. Driskill. CCA 39889. 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 issue:

 

IN APPELLANT'S FIRST COURT-MARTIAL, THE MILITARY JUDGE DISMISSED THE CHARGE OF WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF OBSCENE CARTOONS AFTER CLOSING ARGUMENTS. DID THE GOVERNMENT'S REPROSECUTION OF APPELLANT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE 44'S PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Friday, March 31, 2023

Certificate for Review

 

No. 23-0134/AF. U.S. v. Zachary C. Rocha. CCA 40134. Notice is hereby 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:

 

WHETHER THE PRESIDENTIALY-ENUMERATED ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSE OF INDECENT CONDUCT PROVIDED APPELLEE WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY-REQUIRED FAIR NOTICE THAT COMMITTING SEXUAL ACTS WITH A CHILD SEX DOLL WAS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTION.

 

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 1st day of May, 2023.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0080/AR. U.S. v. Anthony R. Ramirez. CCA 20210376. 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 IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEFENSE TO INQUIRE INTO RACIAL BIAS DURING VOIR DIRE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0006/AR. U.S. v. Gene N. Williams. CCA 20130582. 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 THE ARMY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REASSESSING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, February 23, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 23-0021/NA. U.S. v. Nixon Keago. CCA 202100008. 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 issue:

 

DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY DENYING THREE ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE AGAINST THREE MEMBERS?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, January 30, 2023

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0294/MC. U.S. v. Eric N. Vance. CCA 202100024. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeal, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 23-0050/AR. U.S. v. Cory M. Garrett. CCA 20210298. 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 issue:

 

DID THE MILITARY JUDGE DENY APPELLANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, December 6, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0284/AR. U.S. v. Brian C. Docilet. CCA 20200358. 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 THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING DEFENSE'S REQUEST TO POLL THE PANEL TO VERIFY A UNANIMOUS VERDICT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, October 4, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0258/AR. U.S. v. Roberto Aikanoff, Jr. CCA 20200423. 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 APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, October 3, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0249/CG. U.S. v. Fernando M. Brown. CCA 001-69-21. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:

 

ARE APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 91 LEGALLY INSUFFICENT WHERE THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE CHARGED CONDUCT OCCURRED IN THE SIGHT, HEARING, OR PRESENCE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS WHILE THEY WERE IN THE EXECUTION OF THEIR OFFICE?

 

Briefs will be file under Rule 25.




Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0233/AR. U.S. v. Margarito Miramontes. CCA 20200476. 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 WHEN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION REQUESTING THAT A CONVICTION IN HIS CASE BE UNANIMOUS.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Friday, August 26, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0211/AF. U.S. v. Liam C. Lattin. CCA 39859. 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 ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT APPLY THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE.

 

II.  WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO ADDRESS A SEARCH AUTHORIZATION'S STATED EXPIRATION DATE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, August 18, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0226/AR. U.S. v. Nicholas J. Apgar. CCA 20200615. 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 WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. 




Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0165/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan M. Martinez. CCA 39973. 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 issue:

 

WHETHER, BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL THAT A GUILTY VERDICT REQUIRED UNANIMITY, THE MILITARY JUDGE VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FIFTH OR SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, July 25, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0193/AF. U.S. v. Anthony A. Anderson. CCA 39969. 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 issue:

 

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.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 22-0205/AF. U.S. v. Andrew Y. Veerathanongdech. CCA 40005. 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 issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL THAT A GUILTY VERDICT MUST BE UNANIMOUS WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, July 7, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0090/AF. U.S. v. Andrew P. Witt. CCA 36785. 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 issue:

 

DURING SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS THE TRIAL COUNSEL URGED THE PANEL MEMBERS TO CONSIDER HOW THE SENTENCE THEY IMPOSED WOULD REFLECT ON THEM PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE MEMBERS WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY HARM APPELLANT COMMITTED IN THE FUTURE. DID THE TRIAL COUNSEL'S SENTENCING ARGUMENT CONSTITUTE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THAT WARRANTS RELIEF?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, June 27, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0170/AF. U.S. v. William C. McAlhaney. CCA 39979. 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 issue:

 

DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY APPLYING PLAIN ERROR REVIEW IN CONSIDERING A QUESTION OF SENTENCE APPROPRIATENESS, TO WIT:  WHETHER THE WORDING OF THE REPRIMAND RENDERED APPELLANT'S SENTENCE INAPPROPRIATELY SEVERE?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, May 26, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0123/AF. U.S. v. Travis D. Pullings. CCA 39948. 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. IN ADDITION TO PRISON OFFICIALS, CAN THE DECISIONS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL SATISFY THE "DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE" ASPECT OF THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT TEST WHEN THEY REPEATEDLY SEND MILITARY INMATES TO A LOCAL CIVILIAN CONFINEMENT CENTER WITH A HISTORY OF INHUMANE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR INMATES?

 

II. ADDITIONALLY OR ALTERNATIVELY, DID APPELLANT SUFFER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR 247 DAYS AND NIGHTS AT LOWNDES COUNTY JAIL?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, May 23, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0122/AF. U.S. v. Katelyn L. Day. CCA 39962. 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 issue:

 

WHETHER ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY, "A CREATURE UNKNOWN TO FEDERAL LAW," IS A VIABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE UCMJ.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Thursday, May 5, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0129/AR. U.S. v. Nicholas R. St. Jean. CCA 20190663. 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 MILTIARY JUDGE ERRED BY EXCLUDING EVIDENCE UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 412 AND BY PREVENTING THE DEFENSE FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF PARTICIPATION AND CONSENT DURING THE RES GESTAE OF THE CHARGED SEXUAL ASSAULT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0065/NA. U.S. v. Willie C. Jeter. CCA 201700248. 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 CONVENING AUTHORITY VIOLATE APPELLANT'S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, WHEN HE CONVENED AN ALL-WHITE PANEL USING A RACIALLY NONNEUTRAL MEMBER SELECTION PROCESS AND PROVIDED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE MONOCHROMATIC RESULT BEYOND A NAKED AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH IN SPITE OF A DEFENSE OBJECTION?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0008/AF. U.S. v. Norbert A. King II. CCA 39583. 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 issue:

 

WAS APPELLANT'S COURT-MARTIAL IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED BECAUSE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY EXCUSED A MEMBER AFTER THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS ASSEMBLED WITHOUT ESTABLISHING GOOD CAUSE ON THE RECORD FOR EXCUSING HIM?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Monday, March 14, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 22-0098/AF. U.S. v. Chase M. Thompson. CCA 40019. 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 issue:

 

DID THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY REQUIRING THAT APPELLANT INTRODUCE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF HIS SUBJECTIVE BELIEF TO MEET HIS BURDEN FOR A REASONABLE MISTAKE OF FACT DEFENSE?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 22-0100/AF. U.S. v. Sean W. Harrington. CCA 39825. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I.    WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR COMMUNICATING A THREAT.

 

II.   DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS OF THE MAXIMUM CONFINEMENT FOR EACH OFFENSE, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN AN EXCESSIVE 14-YEAR SENTENCE?

 

III.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING THE VICTIM'S PARENTS TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND DELIVER UNSWORN STATEMENTS IN QUESTION-AND-ANSWER FORMAT WITH TRIAL COUNSEL.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Mandatory Review Case Filed

 

No. 21-0193/AR. U.S. v. Nidal M. Hasan. CCA 20130781. Notice is given that a case requiring mandatory review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals in which the affirmed sentence extends to death was filed under Rule 23 on this date. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 23(b) on or before the 24th day of May, 2021.


United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001
(202) 761-1448 / DSN 763-1448 • (202) 761-4672 fax