New Grants and Summary Dispositions

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 for updates on new grants and dispositions (RSS feeds available in Microsoft IE 11 but not in Edge. Google Chrome will require free extension to see feed.)

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0227/AR. U.S. v. Darrick E. Johnson. CCA 20200382. 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 DENYING THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A NON-STANDARD INSTRUCTION TO REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT OF ANY FINDING OF GUILTY.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Thursday, March 2, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0053/AR. U.S. v. Jose A. MunozGarcia. CCA 20200550. 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.

Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 23-0086/AF. Jamal X. Washington v. U.S. CCA 2022-14. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal is denied.

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0004/AF. U.S. v. Humphrey Daniels III. CCA 39407. 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 IN ALLOWING THE VICTIM TO DELIVER HER UNSWORN VICTIM STATEMENT IN A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER FORMAT.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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.

Tuesday, February 28, 2023

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 23-0073/AF. A.L., Appellant v. United States, Appellee, & Theodore J. Slusher, Captain, United States Air Force, Real Party in Interest CCA 2022-12. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that the petition is hereby denied in part and granted in part; that Appellant's request for the trial counsel to destroy the medical records that he obtained from her military treatment facility is denied; and that Appellant's request for the military judge to conduct an in camera review of all her medical and Family Advocacy Program records in order to determine their relevancy and to adjudicate any claims of privilege is granted.

In issuing this order, the Court expresses no opinion on the legality of the means by which the Government obtained Petitioner's records.

Friday, February 24, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0061/CG. James D. Fink v. Y.B. & U.S. CCA 001-23. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A WRIT-APPEAL PETITION FILED BY AN ACCUSED TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ON A PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF FILED UNDER ARTICLE 6b, UCMJ.

Within 10 days, each Appellee shall file a brief addressing the arguments in Appellant's writ-appeal petition that Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, provides this Court jurisdiction, and that the amendment of Article 67(c), UCMJ, in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 requires this Court to reconsider its holding in Randolph v. HV, 76 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2017). Appellant may file an answer no later than 5 days after the filing of the Appellees' briefs.

The Court reserves judgment on whether it will grant review of the other assigned issues in the writ-appeal petition.

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.

Wednesday, February 22, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0010/NA. U.S. v. Eric S. Gilmet. CCA 202200061. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE FOUND THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE (1) WOULD NOT AFFECT THE PROCEEDINGS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND (2) HAS NOT PLACED AN INTOLERABLE STRAIN ON THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Pursuant to C.A.A.F. R. 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed.

Friday, February 10, 2023

Interlocutory Order

No. 23-0104/AF. M.W. v. U.S. CCA 2022-15. On consideration of Appellant's motion to stay court-martial proceedings pending disposition of her writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the motion is granted* pending disposition of Appellant's writ-appeal petition.

*Judge Maggs dissents. Judge Maggs would deny the stay without prejudice to the filing of a new motion to stay after the military judge rules.

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 23-0067/MC. U.S. v. Gunnar I. Naughton. CCA 202100285. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the military judge adjudged a sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for a total of 16 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The record also shows that the convening authority approved the adjudged sentence, without modification. In listing the adjudged sentence in its per curiam opinion, the lower court incorrectly stated that the adjudged sentence included confinement for 14 months, vice 16 months. It then affirmed the sentence.

Appellant has not asserted any error by the lower court in this respect. However, it is unclear whether confinement for 16 months or 14 months was affirmed. Under Article 67(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(c) (2018), this Court can only act with respect to the findings and sentence as affirmed by a court of criminal appeals. If the affirmed sentence is ambiguous, the appropriate remedy is a remand for clarification. United States v. Kosek, 41 M.J. 60, 65 (C.M.A. 1994) ("The appropriate remedy for incomplete or ambiguous rulings is a remand for clarification."). Accordingly, because of the ambiguity as to the affirmed sentence, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following specified issue:

WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER THE AFFIRMED SENTENCE INCLUDED CONFINEMENT FOR 16 MONTHS OR 14 MONTHS.

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to findings but set aside as to sentence. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for clarification as to the affirmed sentence. Thereafter Article 67, UCMJ, shall apply.

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.

Thursday, January 12, 2023

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0001/AR. U.S. v. Cameron M. Mays. CCA 20200623. 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 OFFENSE OF INDECENT VIEWING UNDER ARTICLE 120c, UCMJ, INCLUDES VIEWING A VISUAL IMAGE OF THE PRIVATE AREA OF ANOTHER PERSON.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Friday, December 16, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0038/AR. U.S. v. Mitchell A. Bentley. CCA 20210181. 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.

Thursday, December 15, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0280/AF. U.S. v. D'Andre M. Johnson. CCA 39676. 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 MILITARY OFFICIALS ACTED WITH DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE IN SENDING APPELLANT TO LOWNDES COUNTY JAIL—A CIVILIAN CONFINEMENT CENTER WITH "A HISTORY OF INHUMANE LIVING CONDITIONS"—AND WHETHER APPELLANT SUFFERED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT THEREBY WHEN, INTER ALIA, CONFINEMENT OFFICIALS FAILED TO PROTECT HIM FROM PHYSICAL ATTACK, WITHHELD HIS MAIL, WITHHELD VISITORS, AND WOULD NOT LET HIM GO OUTSIDE WHILE HE LIVED IN UNSANITARY CONDITIONS.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 23-0029/AR. U.S. v. Andre X. Tate. CCA 20200590. On consideration of the petition for grant of review, and Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review and motion for appropriate relief, it is ordered that the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to filing a second petition in the course of normal appellate review; and that the motions are denied as moot.

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 23-0027/AF. U.S. v. James T. Cunningham. CCA 40093. 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 THE AIR FORCE COURT PROPERLY APPLIED UNITED STATES v. EDWARDS, 82 M.J. 239 (C.A.A.F. 2022) IN FINDING ERROR—BUT NO PREJUDICE—FOR A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT THAT INCLUDED VIDEOS, PERSONAL PICTURES, STOCK IMAGES OF FUTURE EVENTS, AND LYRICAL MUSIC THAT TOUCHED ON THEMES OF DYING, SAYING FAREWELL, AND BECOMING AN ANGEL IN HEAVEN.

II. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL'S SENTENCING ARGUMENT WAS IMPROPER UNDER UNITED STATES v. WARREN, 13 M.J. 278 (C.M.A. 1982) AND UNITED STATES v. NORWOOD, 81 M.J. 12 (C.A.A.F. 2021), RESPECTIVELY, WHEN SHE: (1) ARGUED THAT APPELLANT'S UNCHARGED, FALSE STATEMENTS WERE AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE AFTER SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY CITED CASE LAW TO THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT SAID FALSE STATEMENTS WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN AGGRAVATION; AND (2) TOLD THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT HE HAD SEEN THE MEDIA AND THE WORLD WAS WATCHING, TO JUSTIFY HER SENTENCE RECOMMENDATION.

III. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT UNDER RAMOS v. LOUISIANA, 140 S.CT. 1390 (2020), AFTER THE MILITARY JUDGE DENIED HIS MOTION FOR UNANIMITY, DENIED HIS REQUEST TO POLL THE PANEL ON WHETHER ITS VERDICT WAS UNANIMOUS, AND THE AIR FORCE COURT DISMISSED THE ISSUE WITH NO DISCUSSION.

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

Friday, December 9, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

No. 23-0012/MC. E.C.E. v. US and Shelby. CCA 202200213. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal is denied; and that the request for oral argument is denied as moot.

No. 23-0020/AR. U.S. v. Alexander Loya. CCA 20220468. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, and the motion to supplement the writ-appeal, it is ordered that the motion to supplement the writ-appeal is denied; and that the writ-appeal is denied.

No. 23-0051/NA. In re Cooper Jackson. CCA 200700255. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that the petition is denied.

Tuesday, December 6, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 23-0028/AR. Andre X. Tate v. U.S. CCA 20200470. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, and Appellee's motion to attach exhibits 1 and 2, it is ordered that Appellee's motion is granted: and that the writ-appeal is denied.

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, November 22, 2022

Appeal - Summary Disposition

No. 23-0037/AF. In re David H. Juillerat, Petitioner. CCA 34205. On consideration of the Docketing Notice issued on November 14, 2022, in the above-referenced case, it is noted that Petitioner's petition, although electronically sent to this Court, was addressed to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Docketing Notice issued November 14, 2022, is vacated, and the Clerk of the Court will forward this petition to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as a matter under its cognizance.

Friday, November 18, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0298/AF. Robert A. Condon, Appellant v. United States, Appellee. CCA 38765. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied.

Thursday, November 10, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0279/MC. U.S. v. Ethan R. Shields. CCA 202100061. 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:

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?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Monday, November 7, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0234/AR. U.S. v. Byunggu Kim. CCA 20200689. 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 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).

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Friday, November 4, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0277/NA. U.S. v. Adam M. Pyron. CCA 201900296R. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 62, UCMJ, AND DEPARTED FROM THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT SET IN UNITED STATES v. VANGELISTI BY ATTACHING MATERIALS TO THE RECORD THAT WERE NOT PROFFERED AT TRIAL AND USING THEM TO APPELLANT'S DETRIMENT.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE CORRECTLY CONCLUDED APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY FROM HIS FIRST COURT-MARTIAL WAS INADMISSIBLE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE APPELLANT TESTIFIED FOR REASONS UNRELATED TO HIS BIASED MEMBERS PANEL.

Pursuant to C.A.A.F. R. 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed.

Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0254/AR. U.S. v. Andrew D. Steele. CCA 20170303. 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 IMPROPERLY APPLIED A FEDERAL HABEAS STANDARD THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT FORFEITED REVIEW OF HIS CLAIM.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

No. 22-0276/AF. U.S. v. Mellodee L. Behunin. CCA S32684. 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. 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.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

No. 22-0282/AR. U.S. v. Ashraf S. Warda. CCA 20200644. 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 issues:

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.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

Monday, October 24, 2022

Interlocutory Order

No. 22-0065/NA. U.S. v. Willie C. Jeter. CCA 201700248. On further consideration of the petition for grant of review, the briefs filed by the parties, and oral argument, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following specified issues:

I. IN UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD, 15 C.M.A. 31, 35 C.M.R. 3 (1964), THIS COURT HELD THAT IN THE COURSE OF PANEL SELECTION A RACE CONSCIOUS PROCESS IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCLUSION. HOW DOES THE CRAWFORD DECISION AFFECT THE ANALYSIS OF THIS CASE UNDER AVERY v. GEORGIA, 345 U.S. 559 (1953)?

II. IN LIGHT OF APPELLANT'S STATEMENT AT ORAL ARGUMENT THAT RACE IS AN IMPROPER CONSIDERATION IN DETAILING PANEL MEMBEMEMBERS, SHOULD COURT OVERRULE UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD, 15 C.M.A. 31, 35 C.M.R. 3 (1964)?

Briefs on these specified issues will be filed by Appellant and Appellee within 14 days of the date of this order. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no extensions of time will be granted.

Friday, October 21, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0237/AF. U.S. v. Caleb A.C. Smith. CCA 40013. 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 MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMITTING TEXT MESSAGES AND TESTIMONY AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE RELATED TO THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S BELIEF THAT SHE WAS RAPED WHERE SHE HAD NO MEMORY OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION.

II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS CAPABLE OF CONSENTING AND WHERE, EVEN IF SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CONSENTING, APPELLANT REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT SHE DID CONSENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

No. 22-0259/AR. U.S. v. Erick Vargas. CCA 20220168. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS ABUSE-OF-DISCRETION ANALYSIS BY REQUIRING THE MILITARY JUDGE TO CRAFT THE LEAST-DRASTIC REMEDY TO CURE THE DISCOVERY VIOLATION.

Pursuant to C.A.A.F. R. 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed.

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.

Thursday, September 22, 2022

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0197/AR. U.S. v. Charles E. Robinson III. CCA 20170536. 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 the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Tuesday, September 13, 2022

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

No. 22-0172/AR. U.S. v. Michael L. Lewis. CCA 20190200. 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 the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

No. 22-0230/AR. U.S. v. Tristen D. Willey. CCA 20210631. Appellant's motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review is granted, and the order of this Court dated August 26, 2022, is vacated.

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.

No. 22-0230/AR. U.S. v. Tristen D. Willey. CCA 20210631. 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 TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S WITHDRAWAL OF A MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF ON THE GROUNDS OF MULTIPLICITY AND UNREASONABLE MULTIPLICATION OF CHARGES WAIVED APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ALLEGED ERROR OF ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEAS TO FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE OFFENSES.

II. WHETHER ANY OF THE OFFENSES IN THIS CASE WERE FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEAS TO THOSE OFFENSES.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0196/NA. U.S. v. Isiah Anthony P. Causey. CCA 202000228. On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2022), it is ordered that the Court's order issued August 3, 2022, granting the petition for grant of review is vacated as improvidently granted, and said petition is denied.

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.

Monday, August 8, 2022

Appeal - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0023/AR. U.S. v. Michael L. McClure. CCA 20190623. On further consideration of the granted issue, 82 M.J. 194 (C.A.A.F. 2022), and in light of United States v. Mellette, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. July 27, 2022), we conclude that even assuming some error by the military judge, Appellant was not prejudiced. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

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.

No. 22-0196/NA. U.S. v. Isiah Anthony P. Causey. CCA 202000228. 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:

DO MILITARY DEFENDANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO UNANIMOUS VERDICTS FOR SERIOUS OFFENSES TRIED AT COURTS-MARTIAL, IN LIGHT OF RAMOS v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. CT. 1390 (2020)?

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0229/AR. Keith Ferreira, Appellant v. United States, Appellee and Charles L. Pritchard, Colonel, Military Judge, Respondent. CCA 20220034. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied.

Friday, July 29, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0218/AR. Andrew J. Dial, Appellant v. United States, Appellee and Charles L. Pritchard, Colonel, Military Judge, Respondent. CCA 20220001. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied.

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

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0125/NA. Joshua G. Anderson, Appellant v. United States, Appellee. CCA 201200499. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

Friday, March 18, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0124/AR. Joshua R. Sickels v. U.S. CCA 20220025. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Thursday, March 17, 2022

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0119/AR. U.S. v. Patrick A. Kenneh. CCA 20210383. 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 LOWER COURT APPROVED AN UNLAWFUL SENTENCE TO FORFEITURES OF $1,320 PAY PER MONTH FOR FIVE MONTHS, WHICH EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM FORFEITURES ALLOWED FOR APPELLANT'S REDUCED PAY GRADE OF $1,190 PAY PER MONTH.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to findings and to only so much of the sentence as provides for forfeiture of $1,190 pay per month for five months, reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement for five months, and a bad-conduct discharge. See Article 19(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 819(a) (2018) and Rule for Courts-Martial 1003(b)(2).

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0120/NA. Decker B. Jordan v. U.S. CCA 201100621. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition and the motion to file the writ-appeal petition out of time, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the motion to file the writ-appeal petition is denied as moot.

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.

Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0037/AR. U.S. v. Matthew D. Lemire. CCA 20190129. On consideration of Appellant's 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, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to delete the requirement that Appellant register as a sex offender.

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0091/AF. U.S. v. Javon C. Richard. CCA 39918. 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 EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE FOR THE ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSES WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0325/AR. U.S. v. Leeroy M. Sigrah. CCA 20190556. 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'S DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S R.C.M. 914 MOTIONS MATERIALLY PREJUDICED APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Friday, February 11, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0066/AR. U.S. v. Ethen D. Black. CCA 20210310. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS ABUSE OF DISCRETION ANALYSIS BY (1) CREATING A NOVEL TEST FOR COMMON AUTHORITY, (2) FAILING TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FINDINGS, (3) COMPARING A MODERN CELL PHONE TO A TRADITIONAL "CONTAINER," AND (4) FINDING ERROR BASED ON A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

Pursuant to C.A.A.F. R. 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed.

Monday, February 7, 2022

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0357/AF. U.S. v. Manuel Palacios Cueto. CCA 39815. 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 TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE.

II. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHEN THEY STATED THAT THEY REPRESENTED "THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE" AND ARGUED JUSTICE WOULD ONLY BE SERVED IF APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND ADJUDGED A SUFFICIENT PUNISHMENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

No. 22-0052/AR. U.S. v. Samuel B. Badders. CCA 20200735. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS GOVERNMENT APPEAL OF THE MILITARY JUDGE'S POST-TRIAL ORDER GRANTING A MISTRIAL.

Pursuant to C.A.A.F. R. 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed.

Thursday, February 3, 2022

Certificate for Review Filed

No. 22-0105/AR. United States, Appellant v. David J. Rudometkin, Appellee. CCA 20180058. 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:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S POST-TRIAL 39(a) PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR MISTRIAL.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE CLEARLY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DID NOT GRANT A MISTRIAL AND FOUND THAT RELIEF WAS NOT WARRANTED UNDER LILJEBERG v. HEALTH SERVICES ACQUISITION CORP., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 7th of March, 2022.

Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 22-0023/AR. U.S. v. Michael L. McClure. CCA 20190623. 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 WHEN HE DENIED DEFENSE'S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO JS'S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS UNDER M.R.E. 510 AND 513 AND REFUSED TO REVIEW THE MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS IN CAMERA TO ASSESS WHETHER A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS JUSTIFIED THE RELEASE OF THE RECORDS TO THE DEFENSE.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Thursday, January 13, 2022

Interlocutory Order

No. 21-0312/NA. U.S. v. Wendell E. Mellette, Jr. CCA 201900305. On consideration of the petition for grant of review and the pleadings, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following additional issue:

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE VICTIM WAIVED THE PSYCHOTHERAPIST- PATIENT PRIVILEGE.

Briefs on this additional issue will be filed by Appellee, Appellant, and Amici Curiae on or before January 26, 2022.

Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0070/AF. In Re Jose A. Cossio, Jr. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of error coram nobis and mandamus, and Petitioner's motions to correct errata, to appoint counsel, and to stay the proceedings, it is ordered that the motion to correct errata is granted, that the motions to appoint counsel and to stay the proceedings are denied, and the petition is denied.

Thursday, December 16, 2021

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0038/AF. H.K., Appellant v. Lieutenant Colonel Colin P. Eichenberger, Military Judge, United States Air Force, Appellee and Technical Sergeant Lee B. Broome, USAF, Real Party in Interest. CCA 2017-07. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied.

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0341/AF. U.S. v. Daniel A. Bench. CCA 39797. 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 LYING TO A WITNESS ABOUT APPELLANT'S PRESENCE IN THE COURTROOM TO SECURE TESTIMONY MATERIALLY PREJUDICES APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0360/AF. U.S. v. Brandon M. Horne. CCA 39717. 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 CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL COUNSEL AND SPECIAL VICTIM'S COUNSEL CREATED AN INTOLERABLE STRAIN ON THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Monday, November 8, 2021

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 22-0009/AR. AV2, Appellant v. John H. Cook, Colonel, U.S. Army, Appellee and Clinton Murray, Master Sergeant, U.S. Army, Real Party in Interest. CCA 20210409. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied.

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition

No. 21-0318/AR. U.S. v. Sven M. Council. CCA 20190321. On consideration of Appellant's motion to exceed page limits and the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said motion is granted, and that said petition is granted on the following issue:

DID THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A STAY AND TO ORDER A SANITY BOARD PURSUANT TO R.C.M. 1203 AND 706?

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 proceedings in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1203(e)(5). That court may first order affidavits from all appellate defense counsel concerning Appellant's mental capacity to cooperate with counsel in appellate proceedings, but in any event shall order an R.C.M. 706 inquiry into Appellant's mental capacity at trial and on appeal and his mental responsibility for his offenses. If there are further proceedings, Articles 66 and 67, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 866, 867 (2018), respectively, shall apply.

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Appeal - Summary Disposition

No. 21-0059/MC. U.S. v. Bradley M. Metz. CCA 201900089. On further consideration of the granted issue, 81 M.J. 148 (C.A.A.F. 2021), the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we answer the issue in the affirmative. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court to conduct the three-pronged approach of Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) in examining the effects of an unlawful apprehension upon a subsequent search. See United States v. Conklin, 63 M.J. 333, 338 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Khamsouk, 57 M.J. 282, 290-91 (C.A.A.F. 2002). On remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals may order affidavits or a factfinding hearing, if necessary. See United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2018), shall apply.

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition

No. 21-0336/AF. In re David H. Juillerat. CCA 34205. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of error coram nobis, habeas corpus, mandamus, and request for clarification, it is ordered that the petition is denied.

Appeals - Summary Dispositions

No. 20-0358/AR. U.S. v. Carlos Muniz, Jr. CCA 20200092. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration and on further consideration of the granted issue, 80 M.J. 401 (C.A.A.F. 2020), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). Having reviewed the record of trial, we determine that the procedural error did not materially prejudice a substantial right. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for reconsideration is granted, that the Order in this case of June 29, 201 is vacated, and the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 21-0040/AR. U.S. v. Leshan Jones. CCA 20190254. On further consideration of the granted issue, 80 M.J. 458 (C.A.A.F. 2020), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __, (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). Having reviewed the record of trial, we determine that the procedural error did not materially prejudice a substantial right. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 21-0078/AR. U.S. v. Montana J. Miller. CCA 20190597. On consideration of Appellant's motion to file the petition for reconsideration out of time, the petition for reconsideration and on further consideration of the granted issue (81 M.J. 50 (C.A.A.F. 2021)), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). Having reviewed the record of trial, we determine that the procedural error did not materially prejudice a substantial right. Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion to file a petition for reconsideration out of time is granted, that the petition for reconsideration is granted, that the Order in this case of June 29, 2021 is vacated, and the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 21-0126/AF. U.S. v. James A. Aumont. CCA 39673. On further consideration of the granted issue, 81 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. 2021), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). In light of this Court's recent decision in Brubaker-Escobar, we deem it appropriate to remand this case to the Court of Criminal Appeals so that the lower court may directly address the issue of whether the procedural error materially prejudiced a substantial right of Appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals for a determination of whether the procedural error materially prejudiced a substantial right of Appellant.

No. 21-0134/AR. U.S. v. Luis E. Ramirez. CCA 20190367. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration and on further consideration of the granted issue, 81 M.J. 239 (C.A.A.F. 2021), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). Having reviewed the record of trial, we determine that the procedural error did not materially prejudice a substantial right. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for reconsideration is granted, that the Order in this case of June 29, 2021 is vacated and the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 21-0201/AR. U.S. v. Adrian L. Ingram, Jr. CCA 20190610. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration and on further consideration of the granted issue, 81 M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. May 4, 2021), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). Having reviewed the record of trial, we determine that the procedural error did not materially prejudice a substantial right. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for reconsideration is granted, that the Order in this case of June 29, 2021 is vacated, and the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 21-0234/AR. U.S. v. Logan T. Kyle. CCA 20190372. On further consideration of the granted issue, 81 M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. June 4, 2021), we conclude that because Appellant was found guilty of at least one offense that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, the convening authority erred in taking "no action" on the sentence. However, because the charges were referred in this case after January 1, 2019, this error was procedural, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review Appellant's case. See United States v. Brubaker-Escobar, 81 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 7, 2021). Having reviewed the record of trial, we determine that the procedural error did not materially prejudice a substantial right. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0312/NA. U.S. v. Wendell E. Mellette, Jr. CCA 201900305. 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. M.R.E. 513 EXTENDS THE PYSCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE TO A "CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION" BETWEEN PATIENT AND PSYCHOTHERAPIST OR ASSISTANT. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY CONCLUDING DIAGNOSES AND TREATMENT ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PRIVILEGE, INVOKING THE ABSURDITY DOCTRINE?

II. DID THE NMCCA DEPART FROM SUPREME COURT AND CAAF PRECEDENT BY NOT REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE AT ISSUE—DIAGNOSES AND TREATMENT, INCLUDING PRESCRIPTIONS—IN CONCLUDING: (1) THE MENTAL HEALTH EVIDENCE WAS BOTH PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL; AND (2) FAILURE TO PRODUCE IT WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHERE THE UNKNOWN EVIDENCE COULD HAVE NEGATED THE EVIDENCE THE NMCCA CLAIMED TO BE "OVERWHELMING" EVIDENCE?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0304/MC. U.S. v. Christopher J. Nelson. CCA 202000108. 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 AND THE COURT BELOW ERR IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED HIS SMART PHONE PASSCODE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL CONDUCTING THE INTERROGATION ASSERTED THAT HE POSSESSED A SEARCH AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PHONE AND APPELLANT ONLY PROVIDED HIS PASSCODE BECAUSE APPELLANT BELIEVED HE HAD "NO CHOICE?"

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0216/NA. U.S. v. Joseph R. Nelson. CCA 201900239. 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:

ARTICLE 31(d), UCMJ REQUIRES SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 31(b). AFTER THE MILITARY JUDGE DETERMINED THAT NCIS AGENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE 31(b) BECAUSE THEIR RIGHTS ADVISEMENT DID NOT PROPERLY ORIENT APPELLANT TO THE NATURE OF THE SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT, DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY ONLY SUPPRESSING THE STATEMENT AS IT RELATED TO ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE, BUT THEN ALLOWING THE EVIDENCE TO BE ADMITTED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE OFFENSES?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Thursday, August 5, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0235/AR. U.S. v. David C. Tate. CCA 20180477. 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 TRANSCRIPT OF APPELLANT'S TRIAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY VERBATIM.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Thursday, July 15, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0245/AF. U.S. v. Isaiah L. Edwards. CCA 39696. 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 ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE VICTIM TO PRESENT AS AN IMPACT STATEMENT A VIDEO—PRODUCED BY THE TRIAL COUNSEL—THAT INCLUDED PHOTOS AND BACKGROUND MUSIC.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0149/NA. United States, Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Paul E. Cooper, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. CCA 201500039. 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. AN ACCUSED HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL MAKE A PROPER ARGUMENT ON THE EVIDENCE AND APPLICABLE LAW IN HIS FAVOR. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ALLOWED THE MEMBERS TO RECALL THE COMPLAINING WITNESS AFTER DELIBERATIONS BUT REFUSED THE DEFENSE REQUEST TO PRESENT A RENEWED CLOSING SUMMATION ON HER NEW TESTIMONY? DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE?

II. AN APPELLANT HAS THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BY APPELLATE COUNSEL. WERE APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE WHERE: (1) COUNSEL FAILED TO ASSIGN AS ERROR THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DENIAL OF A RENEWED CLOSING ARGUMENT DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S OBJECTION AT TRIAL; (2) THIS COURT DECIDED UNITED STATES v. BESS, 75 M.J. 70 (C.A.A.F. 2016), ONE MONTH BEFORE COUNSEL FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RAISING ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR BEFORE THE LOWER COURT; AND (3) THE LOWER COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE WHEN IT WAS RAISED DURING A LATER REMAND TO THAT COURT?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Friday, May 21, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0236/NA. U.S. v. Craig R. Becker. CCA 201900342. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ITS ABUSE OF DISCRETION ANALYSIS BY FAILING TO GIVE THE TRIAL JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT DEFERENCE, SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN DISCRETION FOR THE MILITARY JUDGE'S, AND ENGAGING IN FACT-FINDING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 62 REVIEW.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0219/AR. U.S. v. Conner B. Hiser. CCA 20190325. 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 HER DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 117a, UCMJ, WHEN APPELLANT POSTED INTIMATE VIDEOS OF A PERSON UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PERSON WAS NOT READILY IDENTIFIABLE AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CONNECTION TO THE MILITARY ENVIRONMENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Friday, May 14, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0183/NA. U.S. v. Frantz Beauge. CCA 201900197. 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 CREATE AN UNREASONABLY BROAD SCOPE OF THE PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DENIAL OF DISCOVERY, DENYING REMAND FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND DENYING APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Friday, April 23, 2021

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0004/MC. U.S. v. Julian D. Schmidt. CCA 201900043. 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. WHETHER THE PHRASE "IN THE PRESENCE OF" USED TO DEFINE THE TERM "LEWD ACT" IN ARTICLE 120b(h)(5)(D) REQUIRES THE CHILD TO BE AWARE OF THE LEWD ACT OR MERELY THAT THE ACCUSED BE AWARE OF THE CHILD'S PRESENCE.

II. WHETHER APPELLANT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THE MILITARY JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS AND THE FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MISTAKE OF FACT.

III. WHETHER, HAVING ASSUMED DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE BY COUNSEL, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING NO PREJUDICE.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

No. 21-0179/AR. U.S. v. Xavier L. Anderson. CCA 20180447. 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 DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY POST-TRIAL REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Monday, April 19, 2021

Orders Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0069/AF. U.S. v. Jerard Simmons. CCA 39342. 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 ERRED IN ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A MAJOR CHANGE TO A SPECIFICATION, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION – ALMOST TRIPLING THE CHARGED TIME FRAME – AFTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS'S TESTIMONY DID NOT SUPPORT THE OFFENSE AS ORIGINALLY CHARGED AND THE PROSECUTION HAD RESTED ITS CASE.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.*

* The Clerk of the Court is ordered to seal pages 11-14 of the record of trial (Military Rule of Evidence 412 hearing).

No. 21-0158/AR. U.S. v. Floyd C. Guyton, Jr. CCA 20180103. 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 APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER RCM 707 AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY PURPORTING TO AFFIRM "FORFEITURE OF ALL PAY AND ALLOWANCES" WHERE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY DISAPPROVED SUCH PUNISHMENT. SEE ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

Monday, April 12, 2021

Certificate for Review Filed

No. 21-0222/NA. U.S. v. Chase T. Miller. CCA 201900234. 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 date on the following issues:

DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION UNDER R.C.M. 1109 BY ACTING AFTER APPELLEE SUBMITTED R.C.M. 1106 CLEMENCY MATTERS BUT BEFORE THE MILITARY JUDGE ISSUED HIS WRITTEN POST-TRIAL RULING?

DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S REVIEW WAS UNINFORMED UNDER R.C.M. 1109 WHERE THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED AFTER APPELLEE SUBMITTED R.C.M. 1106 CLEMENCY MATTERS AND REVIEW OF THE MILITARY JUDGE'S POST-TRIAL RULING WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER R.C.M. 1109?

DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE POST-ACTION WRITTEN RULING WAS A SUBSTANTIAL OMISSION WHERE THE RULING WAS NOT AN R.C.M. 1106 MATTER AND NOTHING IN THE NEW RULES REQUIRED THE CONVENING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE RULING PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION UNDER R.C.M. 1109 EVEN IF INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF TRIAL?

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 12th day of May, 2021.

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.

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0120/AR. U.S. v. Michael P. Whiteeyes. CCA 20190221. 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 STATEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 304(c).

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Order Granting Petition for Review

No. 21-0086/AR. U.S. v. Ronald C. Givens. CCA 20190132. 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 IN DENYING THE DEFECTIVE PREFERRAL/UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE MOTION ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.