UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-157

Friday, April 29, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0471/AR.  U.S. v. Paul M. LOMPARSKI.  CCA 20100783.

No. 11-0472/AR.  U.S. v. Michael D. BURROUGH.  CCA 20100341.

No. 11-0473/AR.  U.S. v. Gary L. MATHENEY.  CCA 20100779.

No. 11-0474/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony P. KNOWLAND.  CCA 20071405.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 11-8023/AR.  Adam WINFIELD, Petitioner v. Kwasi Hawks, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Judge, The United States Army, and The UNITED STATES, Respondents.  CCA 20110289.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature a writ of mandamus and a motion for a stay proceedings were filed under Rules 27(a) and 30 on this date. 

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-156

Thursday, April 28, 2011

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0393/NA.  U.S. v. Daniel W. BARTOLO.  CCA 201000212.  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 court below affirmed a sentence that included “total forfeiture of pay and allowances” after the convening authority specifically disapproved that punishment.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY PURPORTING TO AFFIRM "TOTAL FORFEITURE OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES" WHERE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY DISAPPROVED SUCH PUNISHMENT. SEE ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ.

 

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to findings and only so much of the sentence as provides for a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 70 months, and a reduction to pay grade E-3.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0293/CG.  U.S. v. Kenya BERNARD.  CCA 0262.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0393/NA.  U.S. v. Daniel W. BARTOLO.  CCA 201000212.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0372/AR.  U.S. v. Jacob L. COFFEY.  CCA 20091111.

No. 11-0402/AF.  U.S. v. Robert M. BELCHER.  CCA 37557.

No. 11-0404/AF.  U.S. v. Kyle W. CASS.  CCA S31800.

No. 11-0406/AF.  U.S. v. Neil F. GILLOTTI.  CCA 37686.

No. 11-0407/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon D. HARTMAN.  CCA 37684.

No. 11-0408/AF.  U.S. v. Jacob M. HAWKES.  CCA S31754.

No. 11-0409/AF.  U.S. v. Charles J. HAYES.  CCA 37677.

No. 11-0412/AF.  U.S. v. Bradley M. HOLT.  CCA S31750.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0468/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew M. CULVER.  CCA 20100525.

No. 11-0469/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy S. EDGER.  CCA 20100673.

No. 11-0470/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel J. ACKLEY.  CCA 20100660.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-155

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

 

APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0391/AR.  U.S. v. Steven K. SHAFER.  CCA 20090650.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that there is no evidence of the authenticity of pages 1 - 102 of the record of trial.  “Neither this Court nor the court below may review and act on such a record.”  United States v. Vasquez, 44 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (summary disposition).  Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER A PROPER REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, HAS BEEN CONDUCTED WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF PAGES 1 - 102 OF THE RECORD OF TRIAL AS RQUIRED BY ARTICLE 54(a), UCMJ.

 

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 resubmission to that court for further review.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0368/AR.  U.S. v. Brantley R. TYSON.  CCA 20100093.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0391/AR.  U.S. v. Steven K. SHAFER.  CCA 20090650.  [See also APPEALS SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS this date.)

 

No. 11-0419/AR.  U.S. v. Bradley L. GUMP.  CCA 20100546.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 00-0252/AR.  U.S. v. John C. MCALLISTER.  CCA 19961134.

No. 11-0345/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel L. STALEY.  CCA 20080477.

No. 11-0363/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip M.T. HUERTA.  CCA 20090194.

No. 11-0379/AR.  U.S. v. Francesco A. TEJADA.  CCA 20090563.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0465/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher K. BRADEN.  CCA 201000588.

No. 11-0466/AR.  U.S. v. Terry V. TWEEDY.  CCA 20100563.

No. 11-0467/AR.  U.S. v. Arthur R. YOUNG Jr.  CCA 20090092.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-154

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0370/AR.  U.S. v. Armando MARTINEZ.  CCA 20100613.

No. 11-0394/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel J. VINATIERI.  CCA 20091170.

No. 11-0395/AR.  U.S. v. Keegan W. RUSSELL.  CCA 20100527.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0381/AR.  U.S. v. Robert E. BRINKLEY, III.  CCA 20100595.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion for leave to file matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), in excess of 15 pages, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

 

No. 11-0463/AR.  U.S. v. Jermaine J. JOHNSON.  CCA 20090797.  Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including May 12, 2011.

 

No. 11-8019/AR.  U.S. v. Josh R. RITTENHOUSE.  CCA 20050411.  Respondent's motion for leave to file a joint appendix is granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-153

Monday, April 25, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0464/NA.  U.S. v. Patrick S. KIMBELL.  CCA 201000348.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-152

Friday, April 22, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-6005/AR.  U.S. v. Ronald D. WASHINGTON.  CCA 20100961.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2006), said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to raising the issue presented during the normal course of appellate review should Appellant be convicted.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0462/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BARBERI.  CCA 20080636.  No. 11-0463/AR.  U.S. v. Jermaine J. JOHNSON.  CCA 20090797.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-6005/AR.  U.S. v. Ronald D. WASHINGTON.  CCA 20100961.  Appellant's motion to stay proceedings denied.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-151

Thursday, April 21, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0131/AF.  U.S. v. Shawn R. HULL.  CCA 37470.

No. 11-0165/AF.  U.S. v. Daniel A. ZARBATANY, Jr.  CCA 37448.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0457/AR.  U.S. v. Brooke OLIVAREZ.  CCA 20100371.

No. 11-0458/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas C. TOWELL.  CCA 20090964.

No. 11-0459/AR.  U.S. v. Shawn R. LEBLANC.  CCA 20100472.

No. 11-0460/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan L. GILL.  CCA 20100523.

No. 11-0461/AR.  U.S. v. Justin M. FERGUSON.  CCA 20100883.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-150

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0380/MC.  U.S. v. Napoleon C. HERNANDEZ.  CCA 201000427.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0383/NA.  U.S. v. Gary W. LUMPKINS, Jr.  CCA 201000554.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES,  AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0401/AF.  U.S. v. David M. ATTARDO.  CCA S31853.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0384/AR.  U.S. v. Riki K. MOSS.  CCA 20100439.

No. 11-0386/AR.  U.S. v. Jose J. MUNOZ, Jr.  CCA 20091115.

No. 11-0387/AR.  U.S. v. Erick E. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA 20100347.

No. 11-0388/AR.  U.S. v. Alexander N. ROBINSON.  CCA 20100550.

No. 11-0390/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy A. WEHRING.  CCA 20100572.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0455/AR.  U.S. v. Jedediah W. CALI.  CCA 20100440.

No. 11-0456/MC.  U.S. v. Robin A. STAGNER.  CCA 201000390.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-6005/AR.  U.S. v. Ronald D. WASHINGTON.  CCA 20100961.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review filed by counsel for the Appellant on April 8, 2011, under Rule 19(a) (5)(A), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and docketed under Docket Number 11-0436/AR, it appears that said Petition is in fact a 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.  Accordingly, it is ordered that Docket Number 11-6005/AR be forthwith assigned to this case, that Docket Number 11-0436/AR be removed from this case and not be assigned to any case in the future, that the Clerk’s office and counsel for both parties herein promptly ensure that the new docket number assigned to this case be noted on all pleadings filed to date in this matter.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-149

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

 

RULES CHANGES

 

Upon careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which were presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and thereafter published in the Federal Register for comment, it is ordered that effective May 1, 2011, Rule 9(e) and Rule 41(b) are hereby amended, as follows: (changes appear in bold typeface)

 

RULE 9.  CLERK

 

(e) Hours.  The Clerk’s office shall be open for the filing of pleadings and other papers from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. every day except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, or as otherwise ordered by the Court.  See Rule 36(a).  The Court is always open for filing of pleadings and other papers.  A pleading or other paper may be filed outside of normal operating hours of the Clerk’s office by delivery to Court security personnel on duty in the front lobby of the courthouse.  Pleadings will be deemed filed on the date and time delivered to Court security personnel.  Court security personnel will notify the Clerk of the filing in accordance with procedures provided by the Clerk.

 

RULE 41.  PHOTOGRAPHING, TELEVISING, RECORDING,

OR BROADCASTING OF HEARINGS

 

(a) The photographing, televising, recording, or broadcasting of any session of the Court or other activity relating thereto is prohibited unless authorized by the Court.

 

(b) Any violation of this rule will be deemed a contempt of this Court and, after due notice and hearing, may be punished accordingly.  See Article 48, UCMJ.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0341/AR.  U.S. v. Kiel W. PAAVOLA.  CCA 20080890.

No. 11-0375/AR.  U.S. v. Jesse B. JOHNSTON III.  CCA 20100611.

No. 11-0376/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. FERGUSON II.  CCA 20100244.

No. 11-0377/AR.  U.S. v. Jason E. MANSOUR.  CCA 20100507.

No. 11-0378/AR.  U.S. v. Shawn F. FALCON.  CCA 20100180.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0453/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron M. MITCHELL.  CCA 20100713.

No. 11-0454/AR.  U.S. v. Oren A. REECE.  CCA 20100448.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

 

No. 11-8017/AR.  In re Daniel GASKINS, Petitioner v. HOFFMAN, et al., Respondents.  CCA 20080132.  Respondents are hereby ordered to show cause on or before May 9, 2011, why the requested relief should not be granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-148

Friday, April 15, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0446/MC.  U.S. v. Justin GEYER.  CCA 201000398.

No. 11-0447/MC.  U.S. v. John D. WEBSTER.  CCA 201000211.

No. 11-0448/MC.  U.S. v. Kirk A. SPARKS.  CCA 201000275.

No. 11-0449/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew J. BARKER.  CCA 20100376.

No. 11-0450/AR.  U.S. v. Beau A. GRAMZ.  CCA 20100594.

No. 11-0451/AR.  U.S. v. Gerald O. ELLSWORTH.  CCA 20100633.

No. 11-0452/AR.  U.S. v. Scott R. WALTON.  CCA 20090703.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 10-0512/AR.  U.S. v. Troy D. GADDIS.  CCA 20080150.  Appellee's motion for leave to file a response to Appellant's supplement brief granted.

 

No. 11-0400/AR.  U.S. v. Michael T. MCNAUGHTON.  CCA 20090596.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including April 29, 2011, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-6010/CG.  U.S. v. Andrew L. DALY.  CCA 001-62-10.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-147

Thursday, April 14, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0282/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE.  CCA 20090166.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR OFFENSES ABOUT WHICH HE HAD PROVIDED IMMUNIZED STATEMENTS.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0303/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas R. LIRLEY.  CCA 201000502.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.

 

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0184/AR.  U.S. v. Juan P.J. AGUILAR-JIMENEZ.  CCA 20080434.

No. 11-0254/AR.  U.S. v. Naim R. REED.  CCA 20090276.

No. 11-0347/AR.  U.S. v. David E. RUTHERFORD.  CCA 20090199.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8020/AR.  Joseph C. BOZICEVICH, Jr., Petitioner v. Tara A. Osborn, Colonel, U.S. Army, Convening Authority, The United States Army, and the United States, Respondents.  CCA 20110173.  On consideration of Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and his motion for a stay of the proceedings, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to raising the issues presented during the normal course of appellate review should Petitioner be convicted, and said motion is denied as moot.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-146

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0441/AR.  U.S. v. Oswaldomar RIVERA-MORALES.  CCA 20100762.

No. 11-0442/AR.  U.S. v. Donald L. FOXWORTHY.  CCA 20090785.

No. 11-0443/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron P. HUDSON.  CCA 20090506.

No. 11-0444/AR.  U.S. v. Khalif J. RHODEN.  CCA 20100429.

No. 11-0445/AR.  U.S. v. Juan S. MONTEZ.  CCA 20100782.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8022/AR.  In re Charles A. GRANER, Jr., Petitioner v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks and the United States, Respondents. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus and mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on February 28, 2011, and placed on the docket this date.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 07-0253/NA.  U.S. v. John A. HALSEMA.  CCA 20001337.  Appellee's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 10-0512/AR.  U.S. v. Troy D. GADDIS.  CCA 20080150.  Appellant's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new matters raised by Appellate Government Counsel in oral argument is hereby granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-145

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0196/AR.  U.S. v. James L. POPE.  CCA 20080687.

No. 11-0307/AR.  U.S. v. George A. HENRY.  CCA 20090147.

No. 11-0373/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua W. HERNDON.  CCA 20090574.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0440/MC.  U.S. v. Nicholas S. STEWART.  CCA 201000021.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-144

Monday, April 11, 2011

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 10-0651/CG.  U.S. v. Daniel A. GARCIA.  CCA 1317.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 69 M.J. 402 (C.A.A.F. 2010), and in light of United States v. Medina, 69 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 2011), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 11-0046/NA.  U.S. v. Kevin T. ROMANOSKY.  CCA 201000009.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 69 M.J. 431 (C.A.A.F. 2010), and in light of United States v. Medina, 69 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 2011) and United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0438/AR.  U.S. v. Demetrice K. BAKER.  CCA 20100841.

No. 11-0439/AR.  U.S. v. Paul D. DELLINGER.  CCA 20100648.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 11-8021/NA.  William J. WIECZOREK, Jr., Appellant v. United States, Appellee.  CCA 201100036.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this 11th day of April, 2011.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-143

Friday, April 8, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0333/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy V. MITCHELL.  CCA 37551.

No. 11-0344/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. JAMES.  CCA 20090339.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0432/AF.  U.S. v. Jake L. SCHWEIKERT.  CCA 37553.

No. 11-0433/AR.  U.S. v. John A. HARDICK.  CCA 20090042.

No. 11-0434/AR.  U.S. v. David J. ISENHOWER.  CCA 20100354.

No. 11-0435/AR.  U.S. v. Brandan L. MELVIN.  CCA 20100331.

No. 11-0436/AR.  U.S. v. Ronald D. WASHINGTON.  CCA 20100939.

No. 11-0437/MC.  U.S. v. Royan R. ROSCHE.  CCA 201000461.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 11-8020/AR.  Joseph C. BOZICEVICH, Jr., Petitioner v. Tara A. Osborn, Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Judge, Anthony A. Cucolo III, Major General, U.S. Army, Convening Authority, The United States Army, and the United States, Respondents.  CCA 20110173.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and a motion for a stay of proceedings were filed under Rules 27(a) and 30 on this date.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0431/AR.  U.S. v. Clyde E. CALLWOOD.  CCA 20080577.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 27, 2011.

 

No. 11-0433/AR.  U.S. v. John A. HARDICK.  CCA 20090042.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 27, 2011.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-142

Thursday, April 7, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0166/AF.  U.S. v. Harley LUSK.  CCA S31624.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0428/AR.  U.S. v. Kalon L. BROOKS.  CCA 20100323.

No. 11-0429/AR.  U.S. v. Adarrious S. PATTERSON.  CCA 20100686.

No. 11-0430/AF.  U.S. v. Michael W. DAVIDSON.  CCA S31770.

No. 11-0431/AR.  U.S. v. Clyde E. CALLWOOD.  CCA 20080577.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-5003/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon T. ROSE.  CCA 36508.  Appellant’s motion to withdraw its motion for enlargement of time to file a certificate for review granted, and Appellant’s  motion for enlargement of time to file a certificate for review denied as moot.

 

No. 11-8019/AR.  Josh R. RITTENHOUSE, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent.  CCA 20050411.  Respondent's motion for extension of time to answer the show cause order granted, up to and including April 22, 2011.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-141

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0148/MC.  U.S. v. David J. PHILLIPS.  CCA 200900568.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0427/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas A. PATLA.  CCA 20100809.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-0262/MC.  U.S. v. Jose MEDINA.  CCA 200900053.

No. 10-0468/AR.  U.S. v. Sonya M. WATSON.  CCA 20080175.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-140

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0327/AR.  U.S. v. Shannon H. KOPP.  CCA 20090933.

No. 11-0328/AR.  U.S. v. Danny S. DHANJAN.  CCA 20100326.

No. 11-0371/AF.  U.S. v. Brent R. MORRISON.  CCA S31810.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0426/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan P. HUNT-LEGEAR.  CCA 20100575.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-139

Monday, April 4, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0231/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER, Jr.  CCA 19961044.  The order granting review of March 31, 2011, is rescinded.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION SEEKING ARTICLE 13 SENTENCE CREDIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S 278 DAY DELAY IN TRANSFERRING HIM FROM DEATH ROW AFTER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SET ASIDE THE DEATH SENTENCE AND AFFIRMED ONLY THOSE NON-CAPITAL CHARGES TO WHICH APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0188/AR.  U.S. v. Travis E. HOLLACE.  CCA 20080083.

No. 11-0367/AR.  U.S. v. Georgio V. CRUZ.  CCA 20090553.

No. 11-0369/AR.  U.S. v. Steven D. NEWTON.  CCA 20091163.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0425/AF.  U.S. v. John G. TETI, Jr.  CCA S31799.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 11-8009/MC.  Frank D. WUTERICH, Appellant v. David L. Jones, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in his official capacity as Military Judge, and United States, Appellees.  CCA 200800183.

 

In the present writ appeal, Appellant seeks various forms of interlocutory relief, including a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006) (authorizing “all courts established by Act of Congress [to] issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law”).  The Supreme Court has held that three conditions must be met before a court may provide extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus:  (1) the party seeking the writ must have “no other adequate means to attain the relief”; (2) the party seeking the relief must show that the “right to issuance of the relief is clear and indisputable”; and (3) “even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”  Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (quotation marks omitted).

 

The present appeal involves the status of Lieutenant Colonel (LtCol) Colby Vokey, United States Marine Corps (Retired), as one of the defense counsel in Appellant’s pending court-martial.  Throughout much of the trial and appellate proceedings, Appellant has been represented by a defense team consisting of both civilian and military counsel.  LtCol Vokey served as one of several military defense counsel prior to his retirement from the Marine Corps.  Subsequently, he served for a period of time, until September 13, 2010, as one of several civilian defense counsel.  In the pending writ appeal, Appellant has alleged improper severance of the attorney-client relationship, both with respect to the termination of LtCol Vokey’s status as military counsel upon his retirement from active duty, and with respect to the severance of his subsequent status as civilian counsel when LtCol Vokey brought an ethical conflict to the attention of the military judge on September 13, 2010.

 

A critical focus of Appellant’s request for relief on appeal involves an assertion that “LtCol Vokey’s conflict was not irreconcilable.  Rather, the potential limitation on LtCol Vokey’s representation of Appellant arose solely from an imputed disqualification, not an actual conflict of interest.”  According to Appellant, “LtCol Vokey’s conflict will be reconciled simply by recalling LtCol Vokey to active duty.”  In that regard, Appellant has requested various forms of relief, including “[r]equiring the United States to exercise its authority to return LtCol Vokey to active duty.”

 

The defense posture, both as to the nature of the alleged conflict and as to the requested relief, differs in significant respects from the position of the defense during the proceedings before the military judge.  The defense did not assert at trial that the conflict arose, in the words of the defense appellate brief, “solely from an imputed disqualification, not an actual conflict of interest.”  Instead, the defense at trial assured the military judge that the conflict did not simply involve “appearances” and that it was “[m]ore than one of an attorney working at a firm that also happened to represent a witness.”  Likewise, the defense, in its request for relief at trial following the severance of LtCol Vokey as civilian counsel, did not assert at trial that the conflict could be resolved, in the words of the appellate brief, “simply by recalling LtCol Vokey to active duty.”  Instead, the defense team advised the military judge that “we on the defense side don’t have a solution” and that it would take “mental gymnastics to figure it out.”

 

In short, the writ appeal requests appellate intervention in an ongoing trial in the form of an extraordinary writ that would provide relief not requested from the military judge on a theory not presented to the military judge.  In the context of an interlocutory appeal, and the narrowly limited authority to issue a writ of mandamus under Cheney, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for this Court to take such action prior to consideration of these matters by the military judge at the ongoing trial.1

 

Accordingly, it is ordered that the writ appeal is hereby denied without prejudice to consideration of the status of LtCol Vokey as defense counsel upon the motion of either party or by the military judge sua sponte during further proceedings in this case, or upon appeal, if any.2

________________

 

1 In that regard, we need not address the alternative forms of relief requested by Appellant.

2   In the event of any such proceeding at Appellant’s court-martial, the military judge should ensure that there is a complete record, including a verbatim transcript of the proceedings.  The military judge also should ensure that the record reflects the pertinent facts regarding any potential conflict; the applicable source of law pertaining to the potential conflict; whether the conflict is actual, imputed, or subject to another characterization under applicable law; whether the conflict requires disqualification or is waivable under applicable law; and, if waivable, whether it has been waived and, if so, by whom.  In the course of any such determination, the military judge should address separately, under applicable law, any conflict arising out of:  (1) representation of an accused by a lawyer whose law firm represents a separate client with a potential conflicting interest; (2) representation of an accused by a lawyer whose law firm formerly represented a client with a potentially conflicting interest; and (3) representation of an accused by a lawyer in light of the attorney’s prior conduct in the case with respect to conflict of interest issues to the extent that such conduct may have been inconsistent with applicable law governing attorney-client relationships.  If the military judge determines that any such determination requires an ex parte proceeding, the military judge should ensure that the record establishes the necessity and basis in law for any ex parte proceeding, including the basis in law for any assertion of privilege as the basis for an ex parte proceeding.  If the accused is not present for any proceeding, the military judge should set forth in the record the basis in law for conducting the proceeding in the absence of the accused.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-8009/MC.  Frank D. WUTERICH, Appellant v. David L. Jones, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in his official capacity as Military Judge, and United States, Appellees.  CCA 200800183.  Appellee's motion to expedite the ruling is hereby denied as moot.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-0291/NA.  U.S. v. Benjamin H. HARTMAN.  CCA 200900389.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 11-138

Friday, April 1, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0421/AR.  U.S. v. Branden J. HOFFMAN.  CCA 20090105.

No. 11-0422/AR.  U.S. v. Byron D. TYSON.  CCA 20090072.

No. 11-0423/NA.  U.S. v. Thomas D. FASICK.  CCA 201000410.

No. 11-0424/AF.  U.S. v. Rudy BANEGAS, Jr.  CCA 37680.

 



Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site