UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-246
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0183/AR.
No.
05-0562/AR.
No.
05-0577/AF.
No.
05-0687/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0544/AF.
No.
05-0773/AR.
No.
05-0774/AR.
No.
05-0775/AF.
No.
05-0776/AF.
No.
05-0777/MC.
No.
05-0778/NA.
No.
05-0779/MC.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 05-8043/NA.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc.
No. 05-8043/NA.
Misc.
No. 05-8044/NA.
Appellee
shall file an answer on or before
Appellant
may file a reply within five days after the filing of Appellee’s answer.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0004/AR.
No.
05-0300/NA.
No.
05-0719/NA.
No.
05-0723/AF.
No.
05-0746/AF.
___________
*/
Second petition
filed in this case.
by the
CLERK
OF
THE COURT
of the
CUMULATIVE SUMMARY
OF
COURT
WORKLOAD
STATISTICS
FOR
THE
OCTOBER 2005 TERM OF COURT
I.
CUMULATIVE PENDING
Master Docket ..............................
51
Petition Docket ............................ 215
Miscellaneous Docket .......................
6
TOTAL ......................................
272
ii.
CUMULATIVE
FILINGS
Master Docket .............................. 149
Petition Docket ............................ 779
Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 44
TOTAL ......................................
972
III. CUMULATIVE
TERMINATIONS
Master Docket .............................. 113
Petition Docket ............................ 742
Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 44
TOTAL ......................................
899
iV.
CUMULATIVE
PENDING
Master Docket ..............................
87*/
Petition Docket ............................ 252
Miscellaneous Docket .......................
6
TOTAL ......................................
347
___
*/
Comparative Master Docket
figures for the past 10 years are: 51
(FY04); 49 (FY03); 50 (FY02); 60 (FY01); 70 (FY00); 77 (FY99); 105
(FY98); 289
(FY97); 73 (FY96); 105 (FY95).
V.
CASES ON MASTER DOCKET CARRIED OVER TO
OCTOBER 2006
TERM OF COURT
AWAITING ORAL
ARGUMENT OR
FINAL DISPOSITION
(60)
99-0911/MC -
02-0224/AF - BREWER
02-0759/AR - HOLMES
03-0072/AF – LOVETT
03-0223/AF -
03-0256/AR – BOWLEY
03-0270/AF – POLFLIET, Jr.
03-0293/AF - MARTENS
03-0382/AR -
03-0390/AF - BILLQUIST
03-0394/AF – GONZALEZ, Jr.
03-0629/AF – VON
04-0214/AF - BRINKLEY
04-0246/AR - KISALA
04-0306/AR - BURKEEN
04-0359/AR -
04-0411/AF - MORRIS
04-0428/AF - CENDEJAS
04-0470/AR - HILL
04-0578/AR - WOLFORD
04-0604/NA - FORNEY
04-0606/AF - COHEN
04-0698/MC -
04-0699/AF – FULLER
04-0720/AF - FREDERICKSON
04-0797/AR – CHRISTIAN
04-0801/MC -
05-0004/AR - DOBSON
05-0013/AR - LOPEZ
05-0015/AR – SHIFFLETT
05-0047/MC - HANEY
05-0058/NA - COSBY
05-0072/MC – PARKER
05-0077/AF - POPE
05-0101/AF - BEAN
05-0103/MC - STEPHENS
05-0117/MC – RIBAUDO
05-0136/AF -
05-0149/AR - KING
05-0157/NA – LUKE
05-0172/MC - HARMON
05-0195/AF - RODERICK
05-0211/AR – JONES
05-0220/AF - CONKLIN
05-0242/AR - LONNETTE
05-0244/MC - ROSENTHAL
05-0255/AF – GOSSELIN II
05-0260/AF – LANE
05-0266/MC - CRAWFORD
05-0271/NA - POLITTE
05-0280/AF – REGAN
05-0288/AR – ALEMAN
05-0310/AF – REILY, Jr.
05-0311/AF – STONE
05-0320/AR – STAPP
05-0403/AF – CARY, Jr.
05-0447/AF – WALSWORTH
05-5002/MC – LONG
05-5003/AF – HARDING
AWAITING BRIEFS (27)
04-0442/AF - MOFFEIT
04-0799/NA - MILLER
05-0127/MC - TOOHEY
05-0159/AR - WILCOX
05-0165/NA – OSHESKIE
05-0235/NA - ALLISON
05-0236/MC – BOYD
05-0262/AR – BUBER
05-0263/MC - SIMMONS
05-0270/NA – RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA
05-0274/MC & 05-5001/MC - QUINTANILLA
05-0278/MC - CRAIG
05-0287/MC - TENNEY
05-0300/NA - MAGYARI
05-0341/NA - CAPERS
05-0363/NA – MCKEEL
05-0374/AF – JAMES
05-0381/AF – STEWART
05-0405/NA – DEARING
05-0417/AF – MADIGAN
05-0423/CG – BUNGERT
05-0462/AF – GASTON
05-0505/MC - SCHWARTZ
05-0506/NA - JOHNSON
05-0508/MC -
05-0521/MC - ROSE
05-0548/NA -
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-245
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0417/AF.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY RULING THAT THE PURPORTED POSITIVE BLOOD LAB TEST FOR DIAZEPAM WAS ADMISSIBLE WHEN
THE
GOVERNMENT DENIED THE DEFENSE ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE BY DESTROYING THE
BLOOD
SAMPLE.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0386/AR.
No.
05-0481/AF.
No.
05-0582/AR.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
05-0262/AR.
Scott A. BUBER. CCA
20000777. On
consideration of Appellee’s petitions
for reconsideration of this Court’s orders issued on
On
On
On
On
the motion for
remand and the
motion for extension of time to file a certificate of review.
A petition for
reconsideration
is discretionary. According to Rule 32
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Rules of
Practice
and Procedure, “[t]he petition shall state with particularity the
points of law
or fact which, in the opinion of the party seeking reconsideration, the
Court
has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in
support of
the petition as the party desires to present.
Petitions are not to contain merely a restatement of
arguments
already presented.” As we have
previously
held, “[t]o be successful on a petition for reconsideration, the
petitioner
must demonstrate that the Court misconstrued or overlooked an issue of
law or
fact.”
The Government’s
petitions
for reconsideration do not demonstrate how the decisions in question
misconstrued or overlooked an issue of law or fact.
Accordingly, the Government’s motions for
reconsideration are denied.
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting):
C.A.A.F. Rule 33 allows the Court to
suspend our Rules for “good cause.” The
majority fails to exercise its discretionary authority to allow the
Government
to seek reconsideration or certification of the major offenses,
unpremeditated
murder and assault of a child under the age of sixteen, while at the
same time allowing
the petitioner to block such review by “rac[ing] to the courthouse
door” with a
minor offense of making a false official statement.
Buber v. Harrison, 61 M.J. 70, 71
(C.A.A.F. 2005)(Crawford, J., dissenting). In contrast, rather than dismissing a
petition because it was filed more than 200 days late in United
States v.
Jones, 61 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(order), this Court exercised its
discretion and required appellant to show cause why the Government’s
motion to
dismiss should not be granted. Likewise,
in United States v. Mota, 61 M.J. 284 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(order),
we denied the Government’s motion to dismiss even though the defense’s
explanation for the delay was not satisfactory.
A third example of exercising our discretion is United
States v.
Tamez, 61 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(order). The decision of the court of criminal appeals
was served on the appellate defense counsel with a power of attorney
and
constructively served on appellant. In
response to the Government’s motion to dismiss in Tamez, this
Court
granted review on a number of issues including the following:
I.
IF A
SERVICE MEMBER HAS EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY REGARDING APPELLATE
RIGHTS:
A.
WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, SHOULD THIS COURT GIVE
TO THE PROVISIONS IN A POWER OF ATTORNEY THAT PROVIDE FOR APPELLATE
DEFENSE
COUNSEL TO:
(1)
ACCEPT SERVICE OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR PURPOSES OF STARTING THE 60-DAY TIME PERIOD FOR
FILING A
PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 67(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)
(2000)?
(2)
DECIDE WHETHER TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW
OR TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION THIS COURT FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE
67(a)(3),
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(3) (2000)?
B.
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, MAY
APPELLATE COUNSEL APPOINTED UNDER ARTICLE 70, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 870
(2000) DECIDE TO NOT PETITION THIS COURT
FOR REVIEW
UNDER ARTICLE 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000) WITHOUT ATTEMPTING FIRST
TO
CONTACT APPELLANT?
III.
WHAT ARE AN APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S
RESPONSIBILITIES TO APPELLANT ONCE COUNSEL HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE
DECISION OF
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS --
A.
WHEN A POWER OF ATTORNEY REGARDING APPELLATE
RIGHTS HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY APPELLANT?
B.
WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH POWER OF ATTORNEY?
In United
States v. Beasley, 61 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(petition
filed), the record establishes actual service, i.e., a personally
signed
receipt by an attorney possessing a power of attorney.
Additionally, there was constructive
service. But even though the petition
was over six months late, despite the
various methods
of service, the Court has not granted the Government’s motion to
dismiss.
Just as there was “good cause” for us to
exercise our discretion in favor of the defense in the cases cited
above, it
also serves the interests of justice at least to allow the Government
the
opportunity to present its case on the major offense.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0183/AR.
No.
05-0716/NA.
No.
05-0718/AR.
No.
05-0720/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
04-0238/AF.
No.
04-0392/AF.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-244
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0270/NA.
I.
WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT BY (1) VIOLATING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ORDERS REGARDING
WITNESS
SEQUESTRATION; (2) BY IMPROPERLY COACHING THE SIX-YEAR-OLD COMPLAINING
WITNESS
DURING HER DIRECT TESTIMONY; (3) BY PURPOSEFULLY ALLOWING OTHER
WITNESSES TO
IMPROPERLY COACH THE COMPLAINING WITNESS DURING HER DIRECT TESTIMONY;
(4) BY
FAILING TO BE CANDID WITH THE COURT-MARTIAL REGARDING THE COACHING OF
THE
WITNESS BY TRIAL COUNSEL AND OTHER WITNESSES; AND (5) BY FAILING TO BE
CANDID
WITH THE COURT-MARTIAL ABOUT NOTES PASSED FROM A PROSECUTION WITNESS
DURING THE
DEFENSE'S CASE.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY ADMITTING OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION,
THE
INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE COMPLAINANT WITNESS.
III. WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
GRANTING THE
GOVERNMENT'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE OF CHIEF ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN DANIEL
J.
ABEYATA.
IV. WHETHER THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE ERRED BY
FAILING TO SERVE APPELLANT WITH A LETTER FROM TRIAL COUNSEL TO THE
CONVENING
AUTHORITY THAT NEGATIVELY CHARACTERIZED APPELLANT'S UNSWORN STATEMENT.
V.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON THE MERITS
WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
APPELLANT TOOK
INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH JK BY WATCHING PORNOGRAPHIC MOVIES WITH JK.
VI.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF
LAW WHERE THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST LEVEL OF APPELLATE REVIEW TOOK
MORE THAN
SIX YEARS.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
No. 05-0405/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO
PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE PANEL REGARDING APPELLANT'S RIGHT AS AN AGGRESSOR
TO
EXERCISE SELF-DEFENSE IN AN ESCALATION OF FORCE SITUATION.
II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED A TIMELY
POST-TRIAL AND APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY
JUSTICE AND
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0505/MC.
I.
WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO
RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON
II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY
REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.
No. 05-0506/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE ORDERS DIRECTING APPELLANT TO
RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON
II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY
REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 05-0665/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0769/AR.
No. 05-0770/AR.
No. 05-0771/NA.
No. 05-0772/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-243
CEREMONIAL SESSION
The Court met in
a
ceremonial session to commemorate the retirement of Mr. Jessie Clark,
Senior
Staff Attorney, Central Legal Staff. Mr.
Clark was presented with the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious
Civilian Service for his 30 years of exemplary service to the Court.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0767/AR.
No. 05-0768/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 05-0710/NA.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-242
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 03-0071/AF.
No. 05-0765/AR.
No. 05-0766/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0086/AR.
No. 03-0369/AR.
No. 04-0799/NA.
No. 05-0266/MC.
No. 05-0629/AR.
No. 05-0647/NA.
No. 05-0690/AR.
No. 05-0691/AR.
No. 05-0694/NA.
No. 05-0708/MC.
No. 05-0709/NA.
_____________
*/ Second petition filed
in this
case.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-241
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0761/AR.
No. 05-0762/AR.
No. 05-0763/AF.
No. 05-0764/AF.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-240
HEARINGS
No. 05-0157/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0760/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 00-0679/AR.
No. 03-0678/AR.
____________
*/ Hearing held at the University
of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, California, as part of the
Court’s
“Project Outreach” Program.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-239
HEARINGS
No.
04-0698/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0759/AR.
____________
*/
Hearing held aboard the
USS
Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach”
Program.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-238
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0365/AR.
WHETHER
APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS TRIAL
DEFENSE
COUNSEL ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO: 1) OBTAIN APPELLANT'S INFORMED CONSENT FOR
THE
SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR POST-TRIAL CLEMENCY; 2) ALLOW APPELLANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE ALLIED DOCUMENTS TO THE CLEMENCY REQUEST, INCLUDING A STATEMENT
ON HIS
OWN BEHALF; 3) SHARE WITH APPELLANT THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S
RECOMMENDATION;
AND 4) KEEP APPELLANT INFORMED AS TO WHEN POST-TRIAL MATTERS WERE DUE,
AND
PROVIDE A COPY OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED ON HIS BEHALF.
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 to obtain an affidavit from the trial
defense
counsel responding to Appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance
of
counsel. In the course of conducting its
new review under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10
U.S.C. §
866(c)(2000), the Court of Criminal Appeals
shall
review the trial defense counsel’s affidavit and any other relevant
matters. See
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0365/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0599/AF.
No.
05-0632/AR.
No.
05-0666/NA.
No.
05-0668/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0757/AR.
No.
05-0758/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0086/AR.
No.
05-0274/MC.
No.
05-0381/AF.
No.
05-0697/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-237
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 02-0513/AR.
No. 05-0749/AR.
No. 05-0750/AR.
No. 05-0751/AR.
No. 05-0752/AR.
No. 05-0753/AR.
No. 05-0754/AR.
No. 05-0755/AF.
No. 05-0756/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 04-0313/AF.
No. 04-0669/AF.
_______________
*/ Second petition filed
in this
case.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-236
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0424/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY
COURT ERRED
BY FAILING TO CORRECT THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S ERRONEOUS FINDING THAT
IN
SPECIFICATION 3 OF THE CHARGE APPELLANT COMMITTED AN INDECENT ACT ON A
CHILD ON
DIVERS OCCASIONS.
It is
directed that Specification 3 of the Charge as reflected on the
promulgating
order be corrected by deleting the words “on divers occasions.”
The
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0442/AF.
WHETHER THE AIR
FORCE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REASSESSING APPELLANT'S
SENTENCE
TO INCLUDE A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE AND 33 MONTHS OF CONFINEMENT RATHER
THAN
ORDERING A REHEARING ON THE SENTENCE.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0424/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 05-0509/AR.
No. 05-0607/AR.
No. 05-0676/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0620/AR.
No. 05-0157/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-235
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0165/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE
II. WHETHER APPELLANT
WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW WHEN ALMOST FIVE YEARS
PASSED
BETWEEN THE DATE OF SENTENCE AND COMPLETION OF REVIEW PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 66,
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue
I only.
No. 05-0235/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT'S TWO DNA EXPERTS, MR. Y AND MS. J, WERE WHOLLY QUALIFIED AS
EXPERTS
IN FORENSIC DNA ANALYSIS, TO INCLUDE EXPERTISE IN THE FREQUENCY OF
OCCURRENCES
FOR PARTICULAR DNA SAMPLES.
II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN IT TOOK MORE THAN FIVE YEARS FOR
THE
ARTICLE 66 REVIEW BY THE COURT BELOW TO BE COMPLETED.
Appellant’s
brief on these issues shall be filed within 15 days of the date of this
order. Appellee’s answer shall be filed
within 15 days of the filing of Appellant’s brief.
A reply may be filed by Appellant within 5
days of Appellee’s answer.
No. 05-0548/NA.
WHETHER
THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S STATUTORY AND DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO
A TIMELY
REVIEW BY STRUCTURING THE APPELLATE REVIEW ACTIVITY IN SUCH
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0747/AR.
No.
05-0748/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
04-5005/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-234
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0236/MC.
WHETHER A DELAY
OF 1442 DAYS BETWEEN SENTENCING AND
CONCLUSION OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY
JUSTICE, DOES
NOT COMPORT WITH DUE PROCESS.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0278/MC.
I.
WHETHER A DELAY OF
1428 DAYS BETWEEN SENTENCING AND CONCLUSION OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66,
UNIFORM
CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, DOES NOT COMPORT WITH DUE PROCESS.
And the following issue specified by the
Court:
II. ASSUMING A DUE
PROCESS VIOLATION, WHAT RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE FOR UNREASONABLE AND
UNEXPLAINED
DELAY BETWEEN THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ACTION AND RECEIPT OF THE CASE AT
THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS?
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0287/MC.
WHETHER A DELAY
OF 1274 DAYS BETWEEN SENTENCING AND
CONCLUSION OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY
JUSTICE,
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0311/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE
II. WHETHER APPELLANT
WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WHILE IN POST-TRIAL
CONFINEMENT.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0012/AR.
No. 05-0307/AR.
No.
05-0433/NA.
No.
05-0459/AF.
No.
05-0491/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0746/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 05-8034/NA.
Russell B. MULLINS, Petitioner, v. Judges of the
Misc.
No. 05-8040/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc.
No. 05-8040/AR.
Misc.
No. 05-8041/NA.
Misc.
No. 05-8042/NA.
PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL DENIED
No.
05-0307/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0246/AR.
No.
04-5006/AR.
No.
05-0105/AR.
No.
05-0363/NA.
No.
05-0636/CG.
No.
05-0650/MC.
Appellant's
motion to file corrected supplement to petition for grant of review
granted.
No.
05-0675/AR.
No.
05-0712/AF.
No.
05-0723/AF.
No.
05-0726/AF.
No.
05-0746/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
04-5006/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-233
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0430/AF.
No.
05-0482/AF.
No.
05-0516/AF.
No.
05-0673/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0742/CG.
No.
05-0743/AR.
No.
05-0744/AR.
No.
05-0745/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-5006/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-232
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0738/AR.
No. 05-0739/AR.
No. 05-0740/AR.
No. 05-0741/NA.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 04-0555/AF.
No. 04-5006/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-231
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 98-0146/AF.
No. 05-0455/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-0146/AF.
No. 05-0423/CG.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE
COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING EVIDENCE OF
UNCHARGED
MISCONDUCT WHICH WAS IMPROPER EVIDENCE IN AGGRAVATION UNDER R.C.M.
1001(b)(4).
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0455/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0735/AR.
No. 05-0736/AF.
No. 05-0737/AF.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 05-0156/NA.
No. 05-0329/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 05-0523/NA.
No. 05-0662/NA.
No. 05-0663/AR.
No. 05-0664/NA.
No. 05-0677/AR.
No. 05-5002/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-230
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 04-0113/AF.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0113/AF.
No. 05-0508/MC.
I.
WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO
RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON
II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY
REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-229
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0463/AF.
No.
05-0520/AF.
No.
05-0541/AF.
No.
05-0549/AR.
No.
05-0558/AF.
No.
05-0570/AF.
No.
05-0576/AF.
No.
05-0602/AR.
No.
05-0617/AR.
No.
05-0626/AF.
No.
05-0637/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 05-8039/NA.
Elva J. GRAVES, Petitioner, v. Commanding Officer, Naval Station
San
Diego, California, and United States, Respondents.
CCA 200501108. Notice
is hereby given that a petition
for extraordinary
relief in the nature of a writ of
mandamus and request for a stay of proceedings were filed under Rule
27(a), on
August 29, 2005, and placed on the docket this date.
On consideration thereof, it is ordered that the
request for a stay of proceedings and said petition are hereby denied
without
prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise the matters contained in the
petition
during the course of normal appellate review.
[See also
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET –
FILINGS this date.]
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc.
No. 05-8039/NA.
Elva J. GRAVES, Petitioner, v. Commanding Officer, Naval Station
San
Diego, California, and United States, Respondents.
CCA 200501108. [See also MISCELLANEOUS
DOCKET –SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
04-5006/AR.
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting): I respectfully
dissent from granting the accused the right to a mitigation specialist
as a
right of “constitutional magnitude.”
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Motions filed
by Captain James Valentine to withdraw as counsel granted in the
following
cases:
No.
03-0688/NA.
No.
05-0165/NA.
No.
05-0526/NA.
No.
05-0609/MC.
No.
05-0610/MC.
No.
05-0611/MC.
No.
05-0615/NA.
No.
05-0650/MC.
No.
05-0717/MC.
No.
05-0552/MC.
No.
05-0653/AR.
No.
05-0658/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-228
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0728/AR.
No.
05-0729/AR.
No.
05-0730/AR.
No.
05-0731/AR.
No.
05-0732/AR.
No.
05-0733/AR.
No.
05-0734/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0121/AR.
No.
05-0159/AR.
No.
05-0363/NA.
No.
05-0595/AR.
No.
05-0641/AR.
No.
05-0649/AR.
No.
05-0651/AR.
No.
05-0655/NA.
No.
05-0659/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-227
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0722/AF.
No.
05-0723/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]
No.
05-0724/AF.
No.
05-0725/AF.
No.
05-0726/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]
No.
05-0727/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0723/AF.
No.
05-0726/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
05-226
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0249/AR.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ERRONEOUSLY FINDING
PORTIONS OF
APPELLANT'S PLEAS PROVIDENT TO SPECIFICATIONS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 OF CHARGE
III
CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE (ATM) PROCESSING FEES
WITHOUT
OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHING A FACTUAL BASIS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTING A
TEMPORARY
WRONGFUL TAKING, OBTAINING, WITHHOLDING, OR POSSESSING OF THE ATM FEES.
Specification
2 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:
In
that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Specification
3 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:
In
that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did, at or near
Specification
4 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:
In
that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did at or near Fort
Carson,
Colorado, on or about 14 November 2001, steal monies of a value of
$120.00, the
property of PFC Jeremy M. Castaneda.
Specification
5 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:
In
that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did at or near Fort
Carson,
Colorado, on or about 14 November 2001, steal monies of a value of
$120.00, the
property of PFC Jeremy M. Castaneda.
The
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed as to
Specifications 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Charge III as amended, as well as to
the
remaining Charges and Specifications and the sentence.
[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0249/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0721/AR.