UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-141
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0048/AF.
No. 03-0141/AF.
No. 06-0035/AR.
No. 06-0262/AR.
WHETHER,
AS TO SPECIFICATION 2 OF THE CHARGE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN
FINDING THAT
APPELLANT UNLAWFULLY BATTERED A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 16 BY STRIKING
THE CHILD
ON THE BUTTOCKS WITH HIS HAND.
The
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is
reversed as to
the words “hand and” in Specification 2 of the Charge, but is affirmed
in all
other respects. The finding of guilty as
to those two words is set aside and that portion of Specification 2 is
dismissed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 06-0285/AF.
Accordingly,
it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
WHETHER
THE
The
decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed
as to the “approved findings, as modified” and reversed as to sentence. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the court of criminal
appeals. That court may either reassess
the sentence
or order a rehearing. Thereafter,
Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000) shall
apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0048/AF.
No. 03-0141/AF.
No. 06-0035/AR.
No. 06-0262/AR.
No. 06-0285/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0069/NA.
No.
06-0126/NA.
No.
06-0268/AF.
No.
06-0277/AR.
No.
06-0420/AF.
No.
06-0485/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0563/AR.
No.
06-0564/AR.
No.
06-0565/AF.
No.
06-0566/AF.
No.
06-0567/AF.
No.
06-0568/AF.
No.
06-0569/AF.
No.
06-0570/AF.
No.
06-0571/AF.
No.
06-0572/AF.
No.
06-0573/AF.
No.
06-0574/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0551/MC.
No.
06-0365/AF.
No.
06-0455/AR.
1/
It is directed that
the
promulgating order be corrected to reflect a guilty plea and finding to
Charge
V.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-140
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0372/MC.
WHETHER
THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED TO
HIM
BECAUSE, DUE TO THE
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 06-0001/AR.
WHETHER APPELLANT
SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE MR.
[M], WHO TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON DNA, HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE
MADE
SEVERAL MISTAKES IN HIS HANDLING OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND HAS MADE
FALSE
ENTRIES IN REPORTS FROM THE CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY OF THE ARMY CID
AT FT.
GORDON.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 06-0170/AR.
WHETHER THE
DILATORY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF APPELLANT'S
CASE VIOLATES HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS
COURT-MARTIAL.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0300/AF.
No.
06-0349/AF.
No.
06-0400/AF.
No.
06-0401/AF.
No.
06-0402/AF.
No.
06-0405/AF.
No.
06-0407/AF.
No.
06-0463/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0555/AR.
No.
06-0556/NA.
No.
06-0557/AF.
No.
06-0558/AF.
No.
06-0559/AF.
No.
06-0560/AF.
No.
06-0561/AF.
No.
06-0562/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 06-8012/NA.
Hawan T. CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, Respondent. CCA
200400093. On consideration of
the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of
mandamus,
Petitioner’s motion to attach and motion for a stay of proceedings,
Petitioner’s motion to attach is granted; Petitioner’s motion for a
stay of
proceedings is denied; and the petition for extraordinary relief is
denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0510/AF.
No.
06-0322/AR.
No.
06-0439/AF.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 06-139
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0728/AR.
WHETHER APPELLANT
SHOULD STAND CONVICTED OF SEPARATE
OFFENSES OF WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION IN SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE
IV,
WHERE THE BOTH ITEMS WERE TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.
Under the
circumstances of this case, where the
providence inquiry revealed that both items alleged in Specifications 1
and 2
of Charge IV were taken at the same time and place, there is only one
offense. See Manual for
Courts-Martial,
United States, pt. IV, para. 46.c.(1)(h)(ii)
(2005
ed.). Therefore, the Court affirms a
finding of guilty to a consolidated specification to wrongful
appropriation as
follows:
In that Private
(E2) Matthew Salter, U.S. Army, did
at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 11 April 2003, wrongfully
appropriate a
pair of AN PVS-7B Night Vision Goggles, military property of a value of
about
$2,695, and an M-16 Bayonet, Tag # 288, military property of a value
less than
$500, military property of the United States, the property of the U.S.
Army.
Because the
underlying
misconduct has not changed, the Court is satisfied that Appellant
suffered no
prejudice as to his sentence.
The decision of
the United States Army Court of
Criminal Appeals as to Charge I and its specifications, Charge II and
its
specifications, Charge III and its specification, and Charge IV and its
specifications (as consolidated), and the sentence is affirmed.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0694/NA.
WHETHER APPELLANT
HAS BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT TO
TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW BY HAVING HIS CASE PENDING POST-TRIAL REVIEW
FOR 1967
DAYS, INCLUDING 543 DAYS IN PANEL WITH THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF
CRIMINAL
APPEALS.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0721/AR.
WHETHER THE
DILATORY
POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF THE INSTANT CASE WARRANTS RELIEF GIVEN THAT IT
TOOK
APPROXIMATELY 9 MONTHS (279 DAYS) FOR THE CONVENING AUTHORITY TO TAKE
ACTION ON
A 96-PAGE RECORD OF TRIAL.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 06-0099/MC.
No. 06-0236/AR.
No. 06-0252/AR.
No. 06-0289/NA.
No. 06-0309/AR.
No. 06-0338/AR.
No. 06-0377/AR.
No. 06-0379/AR.
No. 06-0384/AR.
No. 06-0387/AR.
No. 06-0390/AR.
No. 06-0394/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 06-0450/AR.
No. 06-0502/AF.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 06-138
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0647/NA.
I.
WHETHER
APPELLANT'S ARTICLE 133 CONVICTION CAN BE SUSTAINED EVEN THOUGH HE
PLEADED NOT
GUILTY AND THE SPECIFICATION ON WHICH HE WAS TRIED EXPRESSLY RESTED ON
A
STATUTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
II.
WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SENTENCE RELIEF BECAUSE OF
UNJUSTIFIED
POST-TRIAL DELAY.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.
No. 05-0779/MC.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION
WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST COLONEL [J], A
MEMBER
DETAILED TO THE COURT-MARTIAL PANEL, WHO DEMONSTRATED A DRACONIAN AND
INELASTIC
ATTITUDE TOWARD SENTENCING.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 06-0537/AR.
No. 06-0538/AR.
No. 06-0539/AR.
No. 06-0540/NA.
No. 06-0541/MC.
No. 06-0542/AF.
No. 06-0543/AF.
No. 06-0544/AF.
No. 06-0545/AF.
No. 06-0546/AF.
No. 06-0547/AF.
No. 06-0548/AF.
No. 06-0549/AF.
No. 06-0550/AF.
No. 06-0551/AF.
No. 06-0552/AF.
No. 06-0553/AF.
No. 06-0554/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 04-0442/AF.
No. 05-0157/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-137
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0275/MC.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
05-0004/AR.
No.
05-0271/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-136
HEARINGS
No.
03-0086/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0121/MC.
No.
06-0240/AR.
No.
06-0317/AR.
No.
06-0347/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
06-0408/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0535/MC.
No.
06-0536/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0086/AR.
No.
06-0069/NA.
No.
06-0427/AR.
No.
06-0434/AR.
No.
06-0435/AR.
No.
06-0437/AR.
No.
06-0438/AR.
No.
06-8006/AR.
Dwight J. LOVING, Petitioner, v.
____________
1/
Hearing held at the
Washington College of Law,
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-135
HEARINGS
No.
05-0650/MC.
No.
05-0710/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0056/AF.
No.
06-0075/AF.
No.
06-0115/AF.
No.
06-0176/NA.
No.
06-0261/AR.
No.
06-0301/AF.
No.
06-0326/MC.
No.
06-0352/AR.
No.
06-0385/AR.
No.
06-0467/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0528/AR.
No.
06-0529/AR.
No.
06-0530/AR.
No.
06-0531/AR.
No.
06-0532/NA.
No.
06-0533/MC.
No.
06-0534/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-134
HEARINGS
No.
05-0322/MC.
No.
05-0550/MC.
No.
05-0575/AF.
No.
05-0651/AR.
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 03-0223/AF.
GIERKE, Chief Judge
(concurring in
the result): I would reverse based on
the military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child
pornography,” see United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F.
2003), rather
than an absence of extraterritoriality of the Child Pornography
Prevention Act.
See Martinelli,
62 M.J. at 68 (Gierke,
C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part).
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): For the reasons detailed in
my dissents to
this Court’s opinions in Martinelli
and O’Connor,
I disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas to the specifications of
Charge II
were improvident. I respectfully
dissent.
BAKER, Judge
(dissenting): I agree that our decision
in United States v. Martinelli
precludes a
conviction based on 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. However, I respectfully dissent from the
order in this case because I would affirm the lesser included offense
under
clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §
934, to the
offense that involves Appellant’s downloading of child pornography
while on
duty as the Law Enforcement Desk Sergeant.
The question is whether, under the heightened standard of United
States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F.
2004), the record reveals that Appellant fully understood that his
conduct was
prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting. The military judge considered a lengthy
stipulation of fact in this case, some thirty-eight paragraphs or so
and
reviewed each of these paragraphs with Appellant on the record. Appellant admitted on the record, among other
things, that at the time of the offense he was responsible for
coordinating the
employment of a 6-person flight engaged in routine law enforcement
activities. He agreed that his duties
included receiving and processing complaints from the public. During times of increased terrorist threats,
he was responsible for employment of a thirty-person security force. Finally, in addition to admitting that the
Desk Sergeant was a “critical certified position,” he also admitted
that at the
time, his installation was at a “heightened risk of terrorist attack
and [was]
under unusually stringent force protection measures.”
After reviewing with Appellant the paragraphs
that set forth in detail the nature of the images Appellant downloaded,
the
military judge read paragraph 38 of the stipulation to Appellant which
states,
“The Accused’s conduct of possessing child
pornography was wrongful and was of a nature to bring discredit upon
the armed
forces.” When asked if everything in
paragraph 38 was true, Appellant responded, “Yes, ma’am.”
Contrary to the majority I believe that
this discussion on the record in this context between Appellant and the
military judge falls within what is required under Mason. The record demonstrates that Appellant, a
member of the Security Forces Squadron, understood which of his acts
were
prohibited and why they were prejudicial to good order and discipline
and
service discrediting.
No. 04-0214/AF.
GIERKE, Chief Judge
(concurring in
the result): I would reverse based on
the military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child
pornography,” see United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F.
2003), rather
than an absence of extraterritoriality of the Child Pornography
Prevention
Act. See Martinelli,
62 M.J. at 68 (C.A.A.F.
2005)(Gierke, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): For the reasons detailed in
my dissent to
this Court’s opinion in Martinelli,
I disagree
that Appellant’s guilty pleas to the specifications of the Charge were
improvident. I respectfully dissent.
BAKER, Judge
(dissenting): I agree that the
unconstitutional definition
of child pornography given in this case precludes a conviction under 18
U.S.C. § 2252A.
However, on this record I would affirm the lesser included
offense under
clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the stipulation of fact, Appellant
admitted that “[t]he conduct of the accused in wrongfully receiving
child
pornography was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service
discrediting” and included an explanation as to why.
Paragraph 7 of the
stipulation states, “The actions of the accused victimized the children
depicted in the pornographic images and were wrongful.” In addition, the military judge specifically
asked Appellant if he understood paragraph 7 and whether everything
within that
paragraph was true. To both questions
Appellant responded yes.
In the context of
a guilty
plea we have previously said that “we will look to the entire record to
determine whether facts to support [Appellant’s] guilty plea have been
established.”
No. 05-0013/AR.
GIERKE, Chief Judge
(concurring in
the result): I would reverse based on
the military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child
pornography,” see
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): For the reasons detailed in
my dissents to
this Court’s opinions in Martinelli
and O’Connor,
I disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas to the specifications of the
Charge
were improvident. I respectfully
dissent.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 06-0004/MC.
WHETHER THE
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 06-0232/AF.
WHETHER A UNITED
STATES SENATOR'S PARTICIPATION ON A PANEL
OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS
DOCTRINE.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 06-0321/MC.
WHETHER
THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S FAILURE TO DOCKET APPELLANT'S CASE WITHIN 376
DAYS OF
ACTING, VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A TIMELY POST-TRIAL
REVIEW.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0098/AF.
No.
06-0135/AF.
No.
06-0226/AF.
No.
06-0243/AR.
No.
06-0247/AF.
No.
06-0254/NA.
No.
06-0259/AR.
No.
06-0269/AF.
No.
06-0302/AF.
No.
06-0323/AR.
No.
06-0423/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0527/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-133
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0404/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0038/AF.
No.
06-0517/AR.
No.
06-0518/AR.
No.
06-0519/AR.
No.
06-0520/AR.
No.
06-0521/AR.
No.
06-0522/AF.
No.
06-0523/AF.
No.
06-0524/AF.
No.
06-0525/AF.
No.
06-0526/MC.
_______________
1/
It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to
change the
date “31 December 2002” to “31 December 2000” in the findings as to
Specification 1 of the Charge. Judge
Erdmann
did not participate in the decision in this case.
2/
Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-132
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No.
05-0471/AR.
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting):
There is a clear substantial basis on the record
to establish that Appellant understood that his actions were
prejudicial to
good order and discipline. Thus, this
Court can approve the lesser included offenses of conduct prejudicial
to good
order and discipline in Specifications 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the
Additional
Charge.2
FACTS
Appellant, a Chief Warrant Officer 2, was
living with his fiancée and her family, when he sexually molested his
fiancée’s
two nieces, ages nine and seven. During
a family outing at a local lake, Appellant “knowingly place[d] his
hands onto
their ‘privates[,’] both inside their
swimsuits and
over their clothing.”3 The following day, Appellant persuaded the
two nieces to accompany him to a store to purchase gifts for his
fiancée and
his infant son. Appellant drove the
girls to the Post Exchange (PX), where he
purchased
baby products, as well as film for a Polaroid camera.
After
leaving the PX, Appellant drove to a
secluded area
behind a tall tree line. One of the
girls asked Appellant, “Where are we going?” and “I want to go home.”4
Appellant had the girls remove their clothing while he took
sexually
explicit, Polaroid photographs of them, as well as molested them. Due to the fear of being detected by nearby
traffic, Appellant had the girls get dressed and drove them to a second
secluded location. At the second
location, Appellant “took nude pictures of the children in various
sexual
positions, exposed his penis and touched their vaginal and buttocks
areas.”5
After they got dressed, Appellant promised the girls each $15.00
and a
gift from Wal-Mart if they would not tell anyone what happened. Appellant then took the girls to Wal-Mart to
purchase the gifts.
After
her daughters told her what happened, the victims’ mother notified law
enforcement, and a search warrant was executed at Appellant’s residence. The authorities seized the Polaroid images,
as well as approximately 19,000 images of child pornography from
Appellant’s
computer. Appellant was charged and
convicted, consistent with his pleas, of sixteen specifications6 of
various violations of Article 134,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10
U.S.C. § 934.
During the portion of the plea inquiry relating to the
violations of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a), the military
judge used the definition of child pornography provided in the Child
Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA).7 He
was sentenced to ten years of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and
allowances, and dismissal from service.
The CCA modified the findings
related to five
specifications involving the CPPA to the
lesser
included offenses of conduct to the prejudice of good order and
discipline in
the armed forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces.8 See
Article 134, UCMJ.
DISCUSSION
This
Court will only reject a guilty plea if the record of trial shows a
substantial
basis in law and fact for questioning the plea.
United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J.
236,
238 (C.A.A.F. 2002)(citing
United
States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A. 1991)). The
factual predicate is sufficiently established if “the factual
circumstances as
revealed by the accused himself objectively support that plea. . . .”
Although
Appellant’s plea was improvident as to the CPPA-based
offenses, his plea was nonetheless provident to the lesser included
offense
under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ,
as
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and
service-discrediting. See United
States v. Mason, 60 M.J. 15, 18 (C.A.A.F. 2004)
(although accused’s plea of guilty to
receiving child
pornography under federal pornography statute was improvident, it was
provident
as to the lesser included offense of conduct prejudicial to good order
and
service-discrediting, where guilty plea colloquy demonstrated accused
understood
the nature of the conduct as being prejudicial to good order and
service-discrediting). There is
substantial evidence in this record that Appellant understood the
nature of his
conduct of possessing child pornography and that his actions were
prejudicial
to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed
forces. It is well established that the
creation, distribution, and possession of child pornography “whets the
appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal
conduct.” Ashcroft
v. Free Speech
Coalition, 535
In
its unpublished opinion, the CCA correctly
stated:
We are not permitted to affirm [A]ppellant’s
guilty plea to violating the CPPA
with respect to those offenses involving images of child pornography
where [A]ppellant did not personally take
the photographs because
the trial judge used
constitutionally overbroad provisions to define “child pornography.” See
Slip op. at
7-8 (first three interpolations added).
Appellant
stated that he downloaded “images that depicted children in sexual
undress and
sexual positions, as well as in sex” and that he knew these were
children due
to “the exposure, the poses, the actual sexual contact . . . the ages,
the lack
of reaching puberty, the size compared to perhaps adults near them.”9
During
the providence inquiry, the military judge did not specifically address
whether
the CPPA-based offenses were either
service-discrediting or prejudicial to good order.
Nonetheless, the military judge elicited that
Appellant believed “all of the [ ]
specifications” were both “prejudicial to good order and discipline, or
. . .
of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”10
Therefore, there is no substantial basis in law and fact for
questioning
his plea to the lesser included offenses.11
The
possession and distribution of child pornography remains a criminal
offense
under both state and federal law. It
follows that servicemembers who deal in
this perverse
enterprise bring a great discredit to the armed forces as well as
disrupt good
order and discipline within the ranks.
Thus, because Appellant’s conduct is prejudicial to good order
and
discipline under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, I dissent from the
order in
this case.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0342/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0516/AF.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
05-0072/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0086/AR.
No.
05-0649/AR.
No.
06-0345/NA.
No.
06-0422/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
05-0262/AR.
No.
06-5002/CG.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-131
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 06-0034/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE
DILATORY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF THIS CASE WARRANTS RELIEF BECAUSE IT
TOOK
ALMOST 630 DAYS TO MOVE APPELLANT'S CASE FROM SENTENCING TO THE UNITED
STATES
NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND AN
ADDITIONAL 1096 DAYS FOR AN APPEAL TO BE FILED.
II. IN LIGHT OF TOOHEY
v. UNITED STATES AND DIAZ v. JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY, WHETHER THE INITIAL APPELLATE DEFENSE
COUNSEL
WAS INEFFECTIVE IN HIS ASSISTANCE WHERE HE FILED 28 MOTIONS FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF
TIME, AND WHERE THE APPELLANT STATES IN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE "EXPRESSLY
AND EXPLICITLY MADE SEVERAL REQUESTS TO APPELLATE COUNSELS TO EXPEDITE
[HIS]
APPELLATE REVIEW."
III. WHETHER THE
LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO ORDER
FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS TO DETERMINE IF APPELLANT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES WERE EXHAUSTED AFTER IT DETERMINED THAT IT COULD NOT RULE ON
APPELLANT'S CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ISSUE.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25 on Issues I and II only.
No. 06-0366/MC.
WHETHER
THE ONE-YEAR DELAY IN COMPLETING THE MINISTERIAL TASK OF FORWARDING
APPELLANT'S
RECORD OF TRIAL TO THE LOWER COURT FOR REVIEW AND THE OVERALL 600 DAYS
OF DELAY
IN THE POST-TRIAL PROCESSING OF APPELLANT'S CASE CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF
APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TIMELY REVIEW.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0716/NA.
No.
06-0105/AF.
No.
06-0187/AF.
No.
06-0234/AF.
No.
06-0264/AF.
No.
06-0305/NA.
No.
06-0388/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-130
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0730/AR.
No.
05-0749/AR.
No.
06-0040/AF.
No.
06-0125/AR.
No.
06-0143/AR.
No.
06-0203/AF.
No.
06-0205/AF.
No.
06-0222/AR.
No.
06-0267/AF.
No.
06-0284/AF.
No.
06-0296/AF.
No.
06-0307/AR.
No.
06-0311/NA.
No.
06-0335/AF.
No.
06-0358/AR.
No.
06-0371/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0515/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0473/NA.
No.
05-0322/MC.
No.
05-0322/MC.
No.
05-0550/MC.
No.
06-0317/AR.
No.
06-0389/MC.
No.
06-0413/AR.
No.
06-0417/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-129
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
05-0489/MC.
No.
06-0428/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0504/AR.
No.
06-0505/AR.
No.
06-0506/AR.
No.
06-0507/AR.
No.
06-0508/AR.
No.
06-0509/AR.
No.
06-0510/MC.
No.
06-0511/MC.
No.
06-0512/AF.
No.
06-0513/AF.
No.
06-0514/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 06-8011/NA.
Todd R. FORBES, Appellant, v. Commander Christian Reismeier,
JAGC, USN,
Military Judge;
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and the United States, Appellees. CCA
9901454. Writ-appeal petition
denied and Appellant’s
motion for a stay of the proceedings denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0126/NA.
No.
06-0222/AR.
No.
06-0403/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-128
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
02-0493/NA.
No.
06-0498/AR.
No.
06-0499/AR.
No.
06-0500/AF.
No.
06-0501/AF.
No.
06-0502/AF.
No.
06-0503/NA.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
05-0195/AF.
No.
05-0266/MC.
____________
1/
Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-127
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0241/AR.
No.
06-0265/AF.
No.
06-0330/AF.
No.
06-0340/AR.
No.
06-0373/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0497/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-126
HEARINGS
No.
05-0270/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0493/AR.
No.
06-0494/AR.
No.
06-0495/AF.
No.
06-0496/AF.
____________
1/ Hearing held
at the University of
Denver Sturm College of
Law,
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-125
HEARINGS
No.
05-0445/AF.
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0766/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0766/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0714/AF.
No.
06-0164/AR.
No.
06-0248/AF.
No.
06-0251/AR.
No.
06-0278/AR.
No.
06-0315/AF.
No.
06-0318/AR.
No.
06-0329/AF.
No.
06-0354/AF.
No.
06-0356/AR.
No.
06-0357/AR.
No.
06-0361/AF.
No.
06-0370/AF.
No.
06-0372/AF.
No.
06-0393/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0486/AR.
No.
06-0487/AR.
No.
06-0488/AR.
No.
06-0489/AR.
No.
06-0490/AR.
No.
06-0491/AR.
No.
06-0492/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0409/MC.
No.
06-0410/NA.
No.
06-0436/AR.
1/ Hearing
held at the U.S.
Air Force Academy, Colorado
Springs,
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-124
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0484/AR.
No.
06-0485/AR.