UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-081
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0719/NA.
No.
06-0211/NA.
No.
06-0213/MC.
No.
06-0216/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0311/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0799/NA.
No.
05-0421/NA.
No.
05-0730/AR.
No.
06-0238/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-080
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0159/AR.
Appellant also was charged with willful
disobedience of an officer, making a false official statement, and
larceny, in
violation of Articles 90, 107, and 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§
890, 907, 928 (2000).
At a general court-martial composed of a
military judge sitting alone, Appellant was acquitted of two of the
extremist
activity offenses under Article 92:
Specification 2 (recruiting and training) and Specification 3
(distribution of literature). He was
convicted of the remaining offenses. The
military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for eight months,
reduction
to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
a
bad-conduct discharge.
On appeal to the United States Army Court
of Criminal Appeals, the Government conceded that the evidence on the
remaining
conviction under Article 92 – pertaining to attending a Ku Klux Klan
rally –
was factually and legally insufficient.
The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and dismissed the charge. In a summary opinion, the court affirmed the
remaining findings and reassessed the sentence to include a bad-conduct
discharge, forfeiture of $700.00 pay per month for four months,
reduction to
the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement for four months, subject to
179 days
of confinement credit. United
States v. Wilcox, No. ARMY
20000876 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 4, 2004).
We granted review of Appellant’s
constitutional challenge to his Article 134 conviction.
61 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F.
2005). Appellant has not
challenged the other findings affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
We received briefs from the parties and
held oral argument. Upon further
consideration of the granted issue, we note that many of the facts at
issue in
the constitutional challenge to the Article 134 offense were at issue
with
respect to the offenses charged under Article 92. In
light of the fact that the closely related
Article 92 offenses were resolved favorably to Appellant, it is not
apparent
which facts were relied upon by the court below for purposes of
addressing
Appellant’s constitutional challenge to his Article 134 conviction. Under these circumstances, we conclude that
it is appropriate to remand this case for further consideration of the
following by the court below:
(1) The constitutionality of the Article
134 findings. See,
e.g., Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974); United
States v.
Brown, 45 M.J. 389 (C.A.A.F. 1996); United States v. Priest,
21
C.M.A. 564, 45 C.M.R. 338 (1972).
(2) The legal and factual sufficiency of
the evidence of the Article 134 findings.
See Article 66(c), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000).
On consideration of the above, it is
ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals
is affirmed as to the findings under Articles 90, 107, 128, but
reversed as to
the remaining findings and the sentence.
The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army
for
remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration of
the
findings under Article 134 and the sentence.
If the court affirms the findings under Article 134, it shall: (1) set forth the legal and factual basis for
its conclusions; and (2) take appropriate action on the sentence under
Article
66(c). If the court dismisses the
findings under Article 134, it shall either reassess the sentence or
order a
rehearing on the sentence. See
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0306/MC.
No.
06-0307/AR.
No.
06-0308/AR.
No.
06-0309/AR.
No.
06-0310/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS ORDER
No.
06-6003/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-079
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0299/AF.
No.
06-0300/AF.
No.
06-0301/AF.
No.
06-0302/AF.
No.
06-0303/AF.
No.
06-0304/MC.
No.
06-0305/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-078
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0503/AF.
WHETHER
APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WHILE IN
POST-TRIAL
CONFINEMENT AT THE FORMER
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0651/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY
RETURNING THE CASE FOR A NEW POST-TRIAL RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION TO
ALLOW THE
CONVENING AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A GUILTY FINDING WHEN THAT FINDING HAD
BEEN OMITTED
FROM THE INITIAL POST-TRIAL RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0741/NA.
WHETHER
APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN IT
TOOK MORE THAN SIX YEARS TO COMPLETE THE ARTICLE 66 REVIEW.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0559/AF.
No.
05-0600/AF.
No.
05-0640/AF.
No.
05-0757/AR.
No.
05-0764/AF.
No.
06-0008/AF.
No.
06-0085/NA.
No.
06-0089/AR.
No.
06-0090/AR.
No.
06-0146/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0298/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 06-8003/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0099/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-077
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0700/AR.
No.
06-0097/AR.
No.
06-0136/AF.
No.
06-0145/AR.
No.
06-0185/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0295/AR.
No.
06-0296/AF.
No.
06-0297/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-076
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 06-6001/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE
NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED
ARTICLE 62,
UCMJ, TO ALLOW A GOVERNMENT APPEAL OF AN ORDER FROM A COURT-MARTIAL IN
WHICH NO
PUNITIVE DISCHARGE COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDGED.
II.
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ERRED BY
CONCLUDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING JURISDICTION APPLIES TO
TRIAL LEVEL
COURTS-MARTIAL.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0293/AR.
No.
06-0294/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0001/AR.
No.
06-0113/AR.
No.
06-0125/AR.
No.
06-0127/NA.
No.
06-0131/AR.
No.
06-0215/MC.
No.
06-0219/AR.
No.
06-0225/AF.
No.
06-0242/CG.
No.
06-5002/CG.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-075
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0292/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-074
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0529/MC.
WHETHER
THE
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0471/AR.
WHETHER
THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING APPELLANT'S PLEAS
TO
SPECIFICATIONS 8, 9, 11, 12, AND 13 PROVIDENT TO A LESSER INCLUDED
OFFENSE
AFTER FINDING HIS PLEAS TO THE GREATER OFFENSE IMPROVIDENT BASED ON AN
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BROAD DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0529/MC.
No. 05-0650/MC.
I.
WHETHER LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS
PRESENTED TO PROVE THE OFFENSE OF CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.
II.
WHETHER THE
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0693/NA.
WHETHER THE
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0611/MC.
No.
05-0691/AR.
No.
05-0702/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0278/AR.
No.
06-0279/AR.
No.
06-0280/AF.
No.
06-0281/AF.
No.
06-0282/AF.
No.
06-0283/AF.
No.
06-0284/AF.
No.
06-0285/AF.
No.
06-0286/AF.
No.
06-0287/AF.
No.
06-0288/AF.
No.
06-0289/NA.
No.
06-0290/MC.
No.
06-0291/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-073
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0551/MC.
I.
WHETHER
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE IN-COURT ACCUSATIONS BY THE
STAFF
JUDGE ADVOCATE AND TRIAL COUNSEL THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE WAS INVOLVED
IN A
HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL AMOUNTED TO
UNLAWFUL
COMMAND INFLUENCE BUT WERE HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT DENIED APPELLANT HIS
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 10, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY
JUSTICE
(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 810.
III.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE HE SERVED HIS
ENTIRE
SENTENCE OF FORTY-TWO MONTHS CONFINEMENT BEFORE THE
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0684/MC.
I.
WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO
RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON
II. WHETHER THE ORDER
DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE THE ANTHRAX VACCINE VIOLATED HIS
CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED
III.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL
HAS BEEN
DENIED.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue
III only.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0595/AR.
No.
05-0748/AR.
No.
06-0045/AR.
No.
06-0073/AR.
No.
06-0079/AR.
No.
06-0132/AR.
No.
06-0148/AR.
No.
06-0151/AR.
No.
06-0152/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 06-8004/NA.
Russell B. MULLINS, Petitioner, v.
Misc.
No. 06-8005/AF.
Marcus L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc.
No. 06-8004/NA.
Russell B. MULLINS, Petitioner, v.
Misc.
No. 06-8005/AF.
Misc. No. 06-8005/AF.
Marcus L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0753/AR.
No.
06-0179/AR.
No.
06-0180/AR.
No.
06-0181/AR.
No.
06-0183/AR.
No.
06-0191/NA.
No.
06-0212/MC.
No.
06-0230/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-072
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0276/AR.
No.
06-0277/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0022/AF.
No.
04-0219/MC.
No.
05-0242/AR.
No.
05-0353/NA.
No.
05-0682/MC.
No.
06-0190/AR.
No.
06-0199/NA.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
05-0101/AF.
No.
05-0341/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-071
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-070
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0416/AF.
No.
05-0624/AF.
No.
05-0723/AF.
No.
05-0763/AF.
No.
05-0768/AR.
No.
06-0051/AR.
No.
06-0057/AF.
No.
06-0058/AF.
No.
06-0108/AF.
No.
06-0110/AR.
No.
06-0117/AF.
No.
06-0118/AF.
No.
06-0137/AF.
No.
06-0153/AF.
No.
06-0162/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0263/AF.
No.
06-0264/AF.
No.
06-0265/AF.
No.
06-0266/AF.
No.
06-0267/AF.
No.
06-0268/AF.
No.
06-0269/AF.
No.
06-0270/AF.
No.
06-0271/AF.
No.
06-0272/AF.
No.
06-0273/AF.
No.
06-0274/AF.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
05-0426/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0620/AR.
No.
05-0322/MC.
No.
06-0235/NA.
No.
06-6001/NA.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-069
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 04-0784/AF.
WHETHER
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION
UNDER CHARGE I AND ITS SPECIFICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
CRAWFORD, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I do not
disagree with dismissing the charge, but it is a question of timing. If nothing else, a rule change is needed in
this area.
The Court
apparently requires the trial judge to dismiss potentially
multiplicious
charges at the trial level. To allow for
exigencies of proof, dismissal is often effected at the trial level
only after
findings have been announced. Even that
procedure, however, can create problems on appeal, as can be seen in United
States v. Clark, 35 M.J. 432 (C.M.A. 1992), where the judge
dismissed the
fraternization charge and left the rape charge.
In the end, the best charge was the fraternization.
We have examined numerous cases involving
dismissal by the judge at the trial level, after allowing for factual
exigencies,
and followed by approval of the findings in the convening authority’s
action,
that produced a markedly different result than would have occurred had
the
dismissal taken place after direct appeal.
This can be seen, for example, in the case of an individual
charged with
both false official statement and obstruction of justice, where one of
these is
dismissed – usually the wrong one. In
the end, after a direct appeal, both are eventually dismissed.
For this
reason, I would not require or suggest that dismissal be effected prior
to
action on direct appeal. To require
otherwise, is to require the trial judge to predict how the appellate
court may
examine the issue.
As a
pointed example, one need only consider the case in which an accused is
charged
with both felony murder and premeditated murder, ostensibly arising
from the
same facts. Are these
multiplicious? Is the election required
before direct appeal is completed? If
the answer now is “yes,” then the burden is either on this Court to
recognize a
“conditional dismissal,” or on the President to make a change to the
Manual for
Courts-Martial, both as suggested by Judge Effron in United States
v.
Britton, 47 M.J. 195, 204-05 (C.A.A.F. 1997).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0513/AR.
WHETHER
APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WHILE CONFINED
TO THE
"OLD" UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS AT
No briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 04-0784/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 05-0526/NA.
No. 05-0739/AR.
No. 05-0740/AR.
No. 05-0771/NA.
No. 06-0016/AR.
No. 06-0036/AR.
No. 06-0103/AF.
No. 06-0114/AR.
No. 06-0122/AR.
No. 06-0124/AR.
No. 06-0129/MC.
No. 06-0150/AR.
No. 06-0161/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 06-0260/AR.
No. 06-0261/AR.
No. 06-0262/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 05-0242/AR.
No. 05-0440/AR.
No. 06-0040/AF.
No. 06-0071/NA.
No. 06-0186/AR.
No. 06-0192/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 05-0244/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-068
HEARINGS
No.
04-0442/AF.
No.
04-0799/NA.
No.
05-0300/NA.
No.
05-0417/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-067
HEARINGS
No.
05-0159/AR.
No.
05-0165/NA.
No.
05-0382/NA.
No.
05-0423/CG.
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0145/AF.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0145/AF.
No. 05-0710/NA.
WHETHER
THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR BEYOND A
REASONABLE
DOUBT FOR THE MILITARY JUDGE DURING SENTENCING TO ADMIT APPELLANT'S
PRIOR
COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0759/AR.
No.
06-0017/AR.
No.
06-0066/AF.
No.
06-0076/AF.
No.
06-0084/AF.
No.
06-0102/AR.
No.
06-0111/AR.
No.
06-0160/MC.
No.
06-0171/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0255/AR.
No.
06-0256/AR.
No.
06-0257/NA.
No.
06-0258/NA.
No.
06-0259/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0157/NA.
No.
05-0550/MC.
No.
05-0634/MC.
No.
06-0116/AF.
No.
06-0175/AR.
No.
06-0177/MC.
No.
06-5002/CG.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
03-8007/AR.
No.
04-8013/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-066
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0295/AR.
No.
06-0250/AR.
No.
06-0251/AR.
No.
06-0252/AR.
No.
06-0253/AR.
No.
06-0254/NA.
_______________
*
Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-065
APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No.
05-0679/AF.
WHETHER
SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 3 OF CHARGE II ARE MULTIPLICIOUS AND AN
UNREASONABLE
MULTIPLICATION OF CHARGES WHERE THE SPECIFICATIONS PUNISH APPELLANT FOR
TWO
RELATED FALSE ASSERTIONS THAT WERE MADE TO THE SAME SECURITY FORCES
INVESTIGATORS, FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, AT THE SAME LOCATION, AND DURING
THE SAME
INTERVIEW.
Concluding that specifications 1 and 3 of
Charge II are multiplicious, we consolidate specification 3 into
specification
1 of Charge II as follows:
In
that STAFF SERGEANT SCOTT W.F. AUBIN, Air National Guard serving with
the
United States Air Force, 158th Fighter Wing, South Burlington, Vermont,
did, at
or near South Burlington, Vermont, on or about 3 August 2002, with
intent to
deceive, make to Technical Sergeant Christopher Bean and Technical
Sergeant
John Roberge official statements, to wit:
“100 percent of my money was paying off overdue state and
federal
taxes,” and “I have made restitution to all of my creditors,” or words
to that
effect, which statements were false in that 100 percent of STAFF
SERGEANT SCOTT
W.F. AUBIN’S money was not being used to pay off overdue federal and
state
taxes, and in that STAFF SERGEANT SCOTT W.F. AUBIN had not made
restitution to
all of his creditors, and were then known by the said STAFF SERGEANT
SCOTT W.F.
AUBIN to be so false.
The decision of the United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge I and its specification, Charge
II and
specification 1 thereunder (as consolidated with specification 3),
Charge II
and specification 2 thereunder, Charge III and specifications 1-3 and
6-12
thereunder, Charge IV and its specifications, and the sentence is
affirmed. [See ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this
date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0679/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0531/AR.
No.
05-0664/NA.
No.
06-0028/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0246/AR.
No.
06-0247/AF.
No.
06-0248/AF.
No.
06-0249/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0246/AR.
No.
05-0159/AR.
No.
05-0405/NA.
No.
05-0500/NA.
No.
05-0552/MC.
No.
06-0170/AR.
v. Christopher L. ARGUELLEZ. CCA 20030850.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-064
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0579/AF.
WHETHER
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER SETTING ASIDE THE CONVENING
AUTHORITY'S
ACTION, HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, TO REVIEW THE
FINDINGS AND
SENTENCE BEFORE ANY NEW ACTION WAS TAKEN.
The decision of the United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the Air
Force for submission to an appropriate convening authority for a new
action
that conforms to the terms of the pretrial agreement.
Thereafter, the record will be returned to
the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66,
UCMJ, and
then Article 67, UCJM, shall apply.1/
[See ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this
date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0579/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0464/AF.
No.
05-0610/MC.
No.
05-0621/AR.
No.
05-0729/AR.
No.
05-0752/AR.
No.
06-0010/AF.
No.
06-0059/AF.
No.
06-0062/AF.
No.
06-0080/AR.
No.
06-0083/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0243/AR.
No.
06-0244/AR.
No.
06-0245/AR.
1/ We also note that the
promulgating order fails to list the
pleas and findings to each specification under the charges as required
by Rule
for Courts-Martial 1114(c)(1).
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-063
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0575/AF.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF
UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0592/NA.
WHETHER
APPELLANT HAS BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT TO TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW BY
HAVING HIS
CASE PENDING BEFORE A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PANEL FOR 646 DAYS.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0239/CG.
No.
06-0240/AR.
No.
06-0241/AR.
No.
06-0242/CG.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
03-0390/AF.
No.
03-0629/AF.
No.
04-0411/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-5003/AF.
No.
06-0048/AR.
No.
06-0123/AR.
No.
06-0176/NA.
_______________
1/
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): I would grant the petition
for reconsideration based on the impact of United States v.
Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), on the military justice system. See Martinelli,
62 M.J. at 77-87 (Crawford, J., dissenting).
2/
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): I would grant the petition
for reconsideration based on the impact of United States v.
Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), on the military justice system. See Martinelli,
62 M.J. at 77-87 (Crawford, J., dissenting).
3/
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): I would grant the petition
for reconsideration based on the impact of United States v.
Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005), on the military justice system. See Martinelli,
62 M.J. at 77-87 (Crawford, J., dissenting).
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-062
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0535/MC.
WHETHER
APPELLANT HAS BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT TO TIMELY POST-TRIAL REVIEW WHEN
1246 DAYS
ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE COURT-MARTIAL AND THE RECEIPT OF THE
RECORD FOR
APPELLATE REVIEW.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0566/NA.
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 FILED
No.
06-0236/AR.
No.
06-0237/AR.
No.
06-0238/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
00-0252/AR.
No.
05-0445/AF.
No.
06-0167/AR.
No.
06-8003/AR.