UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-222

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0587/AF.  U.S. v. Adrian K. DAVIS.  CCA S31969.

No. 12-0588/AF.  U.S. v. Benjamin C. ROSS.  CCA S31970.

No. 12-0590/AR.  U.S. v. Adrian M. LEBALLISTER.  CCA 20100618.

No. 12-0594/AR.  U.S. v. Larry L. EVERHART.  CCA 20110864.

No. 12-0595/AF.  U.S. v. Andrew D. JACKSON.  CCA 37930.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0656/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy J. EDWARDS.  CCA 20110663.

 

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0320/AF.  U.S. v. Chadrick L. CAPEL.  CCA S31819.

No. 12-0606/AF.  U.S. v. Steven D. CASH.  CCA S31881.

No. 12-0642/AF.  U.S. v. Lance J. HINES.  CCA 38040.

No. 12-0645/AF.  U.S. v. Anthony D. MARTIN.  CCA S31999.

No. 12-0654/AF.  U.S. v. Seth A. COOPER.  CCA S31918.

 

In each of the above cases, Captain Shane A. McCammon's motion to withdraw as appellate defense counsel is granted.

 

No. 12-0408/MC.  U.S. v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS III.  CCA 200800393.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including August 16, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0469/MC.  U.S. v. Markus A. USECHE.  CCA 201100001.

No. 12-0539/MC.  U.S. v. Edward J. FIELDS.  CCA 201100455.

No. 12-0569/NA.  U.S. v. Jason K. KENNEDY.  CCA 201100624.

No. 12-0591/NA.  U.S. v. Timothy D. PIEPER.  CCA 201100487.

No. 12-0652/NA.  U.S. v. Jacob E. CASTILLO.  CCA 201200020.

 

In each of the above cases, Lieutenant Gregory M. Morison's motion to withdraw as appellate defense counsel is granted.             




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-221

Monday, July 30, 2012

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-5003/MC.  U.S., Appellant v. Leslie D. PORTER, Appellee.  CCA 201100188.  Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issues:

 

I.               THE ENTRIES ON PAGES 54 AND 154 OF PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 15 THAT NMCCA FOUND TO BE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY WERE NEITHER MADE WITH THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PROVING PAST EVENTS RELEVANT TO LATER CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS NOR FORMALIZED.  DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY FINDING THAT THESE PAGES WERE TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS?

 

II.       DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY FINDING THAT THESE ENTRIES DEEMED TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY CONTRIBUTED TO APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WHERE THESE ENTRIES ONLY PROVIDED TECHNICAL DATA AND THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE WAS OTHERWISE STRONG?

 

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 24 in support of said certificate on or before the 29th day of August, 2012.  Appellee will file an answer no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief.  A reply to Appellee's answer may be filed by Appellant no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0523/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon T. WEAVER.  CCA 20090397.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0648/AF.  U.S. v. Michael J. HYSELL.  CCA S31990.

No. 12-0649/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin K. SUTER, Jr.  CCA S31976.

No. 12-0650/AF.  U.S. v. Scott E. LUTZE.  CCA 37997.

No. 12-0651/AF.  U.S. v. Darian D. WESLEY.  CCA S31979.

No. 12-0652/NA.  U.S. v. Jacob E. CASTILLO.  CCA 201200020.

No. 12-0653/AF.  U.S. v. Jacob L. EDWARDS.  CCA S31812.

No. 12-0654/AF.  U.S. v. Seth A. COOPER.  CCA S31918.

No. 12-0655/NA.  U.S. v. Kyle I. JESPERSEN.  CCA 201100623.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0206/AR.  U.S. v. Tommie L. OLDS.  CCA 20091044.  Appellant's second motion to compel production of attorney case file and motion to admit affidavit of Appellant are hereby granted.

 

No. 12-0644/AR.  U.S. v. Jayson J. WALL.  CCA 20100174.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 10, 2012.

 

No. 12-8029/AR.  Nidal M. HASAN, Appellant v. Gregory GROSS, Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Judge, Appellee.  CCA 20120667.  Appellee's motion to file a supplemental joint appendix is granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-220

Friday, July 27, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0641/AF.  U.S. v. Roy S. DANIEL.  CCA 38029.

No. 12-0642/AF.  U.S. v. Lance J. HINES.  CCA 38040.

No. 12-0643/AF.  U.S. v. Evaristo MALACARA, IV.  CCA 38024.

No. 12-0644/AR.  U.S. v. Jayson J. WALL.  CCA 20100174.

No. 12-0645/AF.  U.S. v. Anthony D. MARTIN.  CCA S31999.

No. 12-0646/AF.  U.S. v. Caleb T. SARGENT.  CCA S31994.

No. 12-0647/AF.  U.S. v. James A. GUERRERO.  CCA S31985.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0523/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon T. WEAVER.  CCA 20090397.  Appellant's motion to attach defense appellate exhibit A is denied.

 

No. 12-0526/AR.  U.S. v. Lawrence J. LAVERGNE, Jr.  CCA 20090986.  Appellant's motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review without prejudice is hereby granted.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-219

Thursday, July 26, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher L. PRICE.  CCA 20110363.

No. 12-0582/AF.  U.S. v. William D. TALLEY, Jr.  CCA 37810.

No. 12-0583/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron M. PAYNE.  CCA 20110536.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0639/AR.  U.S. v. Erik R. TOMPKINS.  CCA 20110911.

No. 12-0640/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon J. TEMPLE.  CCA 20111040.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-218

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0538/AR.  U.S. v. Tiyewhonne M. DAVIS.  CCA 20101022.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue: 

 

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. HUMPHRIES, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), APPELLANT SUFFERED MATERIAL PREJUDICE TO A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, IN THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV.

 

The portion of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge IV and its Specification and the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge, (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent from the order to grant.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0538/AR.  U.S. v. Tiyewhonne M. DAVIS.  CCA 20101022.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0638/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffrey D. SMITH.  CCA 20110569.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-217

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0503/AF.  U.S. v. Michael J. BLUME.  CCA 37385.

No. 12-0505/AR.  U.S. v. Garrett T. GRELLNER.  CCA 20110580.

No. 12-0534/MC.  U.S. v. Stephen A. GONZALEZ.  CCA 201100436.

No. 12-0542/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph A. MCHUGH.  CCA 20110228.

No. 12-0556/NA.  U.S. v. Angelito R. MASANGKAY.  CCA 201100656.

No. 12-0566/AR.  U.S. v. Brittany D. JONES.  CCA 20110509.

No. 12-0572/AF.  U.S. v. Mason R. HOPKINS.  CCA S31901.

No. 12-0601/AR.  U.S. v. Ross M. CICERO.  CCA 20101029.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-8027/AR.  Center for Constitutional Rights, et al, Appellants v. United States, and Colonel Denise Lind, Military Judge, Appellees.  CCA 20120514.  On consideration of Appellants' motion to correct errata, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

 

No. 12-8027/AR.  Center for Constitutional Rights, et al, Appellants v. United States, and Colonel Denise Lind, Military Judge, Appellees.  CCA 20120514.  On consideration of the writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief, in which Appellants have requested an order for public access to all documents and information filed in the case of United States v. Private First Class Bradley Manning, including the docket sheet, all motions and responses thereto, all rulings and orders, and verbatim transcripts or other recordings of all conferences and hearings before the court-martial, it is ordered that the Government file with this Court the ruling and analysis of the military judge regarding the request for the above-referenced matters, either in the form of an appellate exhibit or in the transcript of an Article 39(a), UCMJ, session of the court-martial; that the Government file with this Court the motion and response, if any, regarding the above-referenced request and, should the Government believe such matters should be filed under seal, file such matters under seal and indicate why they should be filed with this Court under seal; that the Government serve a copy of all matters filed with this Court upon counsel for the accused, Private First Class Bradley Manning, unless such matters are filed under seal; that the Government file such matters with this Court on or before August 10, 2012; and that Appellants and counsel for the accused may file a response to such matters on or before August 24, 2012.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-216

Monday, July 23, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0558/AR.  U.S. v. Paul P. COSSUM.  CCA 20110787.

No. 12-0559/AR.  U.S. v. Thompson B. GOBLE, Jr.  CCA 20110949.

No. 12-0560/AR.  U.S. v. George J. LETT.  CCA 20111003.

No. 12-0561/AR.  U.S. v. Eric A. ORTIZ.  CCA 20110383.

No. 12-0562/AR.  U.S. v. Obryant E. DAVIS.  CCA 20110674.

No. 12-0563/AR.  U.S. v. Theo J. CROWE.  CCA 20110483.

No. 12-0564/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew T. SIMONS.  CCA 20110420.

No. 12-0565/AR.  U.S. v. Ricky L. BELL.  CCA 20110978.

No. 12-0567/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas S. PALIANI.  CCA 20110251.

No. 12-0568/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph W. BRESE, Jr.  CCA 20110648.

No. 12-0570/AF.  U.S. v. Justin C. BEHRENS.  CCA 37657.

No. 12-0573/AF.  U.S. v. Jeffery J. LUCENTE.  CCA S31982.

No. 12-0574/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua J. MARTINEAU.  CCA 37987.

No. 12-0575/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew L. SOLTREN.  CCA 37995.

No. 12-0577/AR.  U.S. v. Owen W. SHERMAN.  CCA 20110791.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0635/AR.  U.S. v. Robert R. TELLES.  CCA 20100190.

No. 12-0636/AR.  U.S. v. Ryahn P. SHAW.  CCA 20100158.

No. 12-0637/AR.  U.S. v. Steven W. GILLROY.  CCA 20111112.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0625/NA.  U.S. v. Charles L. PERRY.  CCA 201100645.  On consideration of the motion filed by Major Jeffrey R. Liebenguth for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellant and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellant.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

 

No. 12-0635/AR.  U.S. v. Robert R. TELLES.  CCA 20100190.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 10, 2012.

 

No. 12-0636/AR.  U.S. v. Ryahn P. SHAW.  CCA 20100158.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 13, 2012.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-215

Friday, July 20, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0631/AR.  U.S. v. Justin R. BAILEY.  CCA 20111154.

No. 12-0632/AR.  U.S. v. Johnnie B. STEVENSON.  CCA 20111044.

No. 12-0633/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel J. MOORER.  CCA 20110693.

No. 12-0634/AR.  U.S. v. Adam W. KELLY.  CCA 20110202.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-214

Thursday, July 19, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0584/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua D. CLARK-SMEDLEY.  CCA 20110205.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect the finding from possession of "10 or more images" of child pornography to possession of "seven videos and one image."

 

No. 12-0599/MC.  U.S. v. Kevin L. MARTIN.  CCA 201200041.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and  the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that Charge I is a violation of Article 121.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0584/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua D. CLARK-SMEDLEY.  CCA 20110205.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 12-0599/MC.  U.S. v. Kevin L. MARTIN.  CCA 201200041.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0630/NA.  U.S. v. Jennifer A. ADAMS.  CCA 201100669.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0600/AF.  U.S. v. Mark W. CANANT.  CCA S26397.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 10, 2012.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-213

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0626/AR.  U.S. v. Alexander VALDEZ.  CCA 20110283.

No. 12-0627/AR.  U.S. v. Steven P. BURNS, Jr.  CCA 20110700.

No. 12-0628/AR.  U.S. v. Amber R. ROMERO.  CCA 20110575.

No. 12-0629/AR.  U.S. v. Lorenzo T. FRANKLIN.  CCA 20100653.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8029/AR.  Nidal M. HASAN, Appellant v. Gregory GROSS, Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Judge, Appellee.  CCA 20120667.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, which this Court construes as a writ-appeal petition, was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date. Appellee will file an answer to said writ-appeal on or before July 30, 2012.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-212

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0028/AR.  U.S. v. Carlos A. RIVERAROSADO.  CCA 20090924.

No. 12-0547/AR.  U.S. v. Darrik A. HARLOW.  CCA 20110857.

No. 12-0550/AR.  U.S. v. Justin M. TURNER.  CCA 20110566.

No. 12-0551/AR.  U.S. v. Qualin E. BROWN.  CCA 20110349.

No. 12-0552/AR.  U.S. v. Erik N. STAMOULARAS.  CCA 20110608.

No. 12-0553/AF.  U.S. v. Brenden W. VER MILYEA.  CCA 37766.

No. 12-0554/AR.  U.S. v. Leshawn WILLIAMS.  CCA 20091067.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0625/NA.  U.S. v. Charles L. PERRY.  CCA 201100645.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0596/AR.  U.S. v. Michael E. ZELLOUS, Jr.  CCA 20110098.  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 August 7, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0619/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth D. NUNEZ.  CCA 20100703.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 20, 2012.

 

No. 12-8026/AR.  Maurice K. ROBINS, Appellant v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Appellee.  CCA 20090996.  On consideration of Appellee's motion for leave to file government joint appendix which the Court construes as the Government's Designation of Portions of the Record, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-211

Monday, July 16, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0410/MC.  U.S. v. Wade L. WALKER.  CCA 9501607.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, IN SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE V.

 

The portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge V and the two specifications thereunder is reversed.  Assuming, without deciding, that Appellant was prejudiced by his lack of notice as to these specifications, in light of Appellant's sentence to mandatory life imprisonment for premeditated murder, he has not been prejudiced by this error as to his sentence.  Accordingly, Charge V and its two specifications are dismissed and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to the remaining charges and specifications and the sentence is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):

 

I agree that Appellant was not prejudiced for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting), to which I adhere.  For the same reasons I respectfully dissent to the dismissal of Charge V and its specifications.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0410/MC.  U.S. v. Wade L. WALKER.  CCA 9501607.  [See also APPEALS–SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0478/AR.  U.S. v. Donald  R. PARRISH.  CCA 20091098.

No. 12-0508/NA.  U.S. v. Jason D. JONES.  CCA 201100592.

No. 12-0544/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffrey S. SORGATZ.  CCA 20100717.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0622/AR.  U.S. v. Tony T. FOLEY, Jr.  CCA 20110605.

No. 12-0623/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy R. CERVANTES.  CCA 20101014.

No. 12-0624/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher A. DOUGLAS.  CCA 20110618.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-5004/AF.  U.S. v. Ryan D. HUMPHRIES.  CCA 37632.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-210

Friday, July 13, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0398/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan A. BOWERSOX.  CCA 20100580.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1), AS IMPORTED THROUGH CLAUSE 3 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO HIM BECAUSE THE MINORS DEPICTED IN THE MATERIAL AT ISSUE WERE NOT ACTUAL MINORS.  SEE ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION, 535 U.S. 234 (2002); UNITED STATES v. WHORLEY, 550 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008).

 

Briefs will be file under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0617/MC.  U.S. v. Hugo I. VALENTIN.  CCA 201000683.

No. 12-0618/AF.  U.S. v. Rudy A. BERTOLLI.  CCA S31875.

No. 12-0619/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth D. NUNEZ.  CCA 20100703.

No. 12-0620/AF.  U.S. v. Monique M. YARBROUGH.  CCA 37789.

No. 12-0621/AR.  U.S. v. Frederick D. WOODS.  CCA 20110906.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8028/AF.  Patrick CARTER, Petitioner v. The United States, The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and Commander, United States Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar, California, Respondents. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-209

Thursday, July 12, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0546/AR.  U.S. v. Shadonna L. TAYLOR.  CCA 20110515.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

*  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to delete "in desertion" from the specification of the Charge.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0522/AF.  U.S. v. Adam G. COTE.  CCA 37745.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER EVIDENCE FOUND ON APPELLANT'S COMPUTER SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND PURSUANT TO A SEARCH THAT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE WARRANT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0546/AR.  U.S. v. Shadonna L. TAYLOR.  CCA 20110515.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0477/AR.  U.S. v. Jason H. BEAN.  CCA 20100362.

No. 12-0510/AR.  U.S. v. Anthony R. BRAGG.  CCA 20110132.

No. 12-0536/AF.  U.S. v. Samuel A. MILLER.  CCA 37976.

No. 12-0537/AR.  U.S. v. Keith C. GAZZARA.  CCA 20110223.

No. 12-0540/AF.  U.S. v. Nathan J. MEISTER.  CCA 37798.

No. 12-0541/AR.  U.S. v. Blanca I. DAVILA-PABON.  CCA 20110238.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0547/AR.  U.S. v. Ivan D. GOINGS.  CCA 20080602.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including July 20, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0206/AR.  U.S. v. Tommie L. OLDS. CCA 20091044.  On consideration of Appellant's second motion to compel production of attorney case file, it is ordered that Appellee will file a response to said motion on or before July 19, 2012.

 

No. 11-0675/AR.  U.S. v. Cassandra M. RILEY.  CCA 20100084.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 30, 2012.

 

No. 12-0484/NA.  U.S. v. Rayvohn D. WALLACE.  CCA 201100300.

No. 12-0496/NA.  U.S. v. Dominic P. ALTIER.  CCA 201000361.  On consideration of the motions filed by Lieutenant Commander Michael R. Torrisi for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent the Appellants and that the new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 12-0578/AR.  U.S. v. Randy A. KRYSTYAN.  CCA 20110014.  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 July 27, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this is case.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-208

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

 

APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0260/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick A. FAUST.  CCA 20090080.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. HUMPHRIES, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), APPELLANT SUFFERED MATERIAL PREJUDICE TO A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, IN CHARGE V, SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2.

 

The portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge V, Specifications 1 and 2, and the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]  

 

BAKER, Chief Judge, (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent from the order to grant.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0353/MC.  U.S. v. Lazzaric T. CALDWELL.  CCA 201000557.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AS A MATTER OF LAW A BONA FIDE SUICIDE ATTEMPT IS PUNISHABLE AS SELF-INJURY UNDER ARTICLE 134.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0260/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick A. FAUST.  CCA 20090080.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0615/AR.  U.S. v. Brian T. WALLER.  CCA 20110387.

No. 12-0616/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy E. BENNITT.  CCA 20100172.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0553/AF.  U.S. v. Brenden W. VER MILYEA.  CCA 37766.  Appellee's motion to attach documents is granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-207

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

 

APPEALS SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 09-0079/AR.  U.S. v. James T. MURPHY.  CCA 19872873.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 106 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II and its specification, Additional Charge II and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 10-0572/AF.  U.S. v. Alejandro ARRIAGA.  CCA 37439.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 22, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specification 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specification is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0104/AF.  U.S. v. Edward T. HUDSON. CCA 37249.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 21, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that 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 remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0257/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas J. SCHUMACHER.  CCA 201000153.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 15, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II, Specification 1, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0362/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas G. GENTRY.  CCA 20080985.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 200 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0400/AR. U.S. v. Michael T. MCNAUGHTON.  CCA 20090596.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 23, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II (renumbered), Specification 2 (renumbered)(alleging adultery), and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0443/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron P. HUDSON.  CCA 20090506.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 24, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II, Specifications 1 and 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0467/AR.  U.S. v. Arthur R. YOUNG, JR.  CCA 20090092.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 1, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge V and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0474/AR.  U.S. v. Antony P. KNOWLAND.  CCA 20071405.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 24, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specification is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0475/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. CONRADY.  CCA 20080534.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 1, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered  that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specifications 2, 6, and 7, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0476/AR.  U.S. v. Berttran L. TILLER.  CCA 20080438.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 24, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0495/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon K. PRICE.  CCA 20100382.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 1, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge VI, Specification 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0511/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron P. STONE.  CCA 20090332.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 11, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge V (redesignated), Specifications 1 and 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0537/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher M. HARRIS.  CCA  201000341.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 201 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specification 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0558/AR.  U.S. v. Alvaro GARCIA, JR.  CCA 20080839.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, June 6, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0611.  U.S. v. Luis F. DIETZ.  CCA 20081031.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 6, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 1 and 3 of Charge II, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0626/AR. U.S. v. Kirby B. MOSES.  CCA 20090247.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 4, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge VI, Specification 1, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0638/AR. U.S. v. Edgar E. MARTINEZ.  CCA 20090582.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 201 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specification 2 of Charge III, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0639/AR. U.S. v. Tanner P. FORRY.  CCA 20080334.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 201 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 5 and 7 of Additional Charge II, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 11-0640/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. MCCULLOUGH.  CCA 20090206.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and its specification is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0009/MC. U.S. v. Brandon M. MAGNAN.  CCA 201000414.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 22, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge V, Specification 3, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0125/AR. U.S. v. Robert A. LYON. CCA 20090792.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, June 6, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge IV and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0148/AR.  U.S. v. James O. MORRIS.  CCA 20081169.  On further consideration of the granted issues, 71 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Rauscher, 71 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge IV and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Rauscher. 

 

No. 12-0229/AR. U.S. v. Rodger S. DANES.  CCA 20091072.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 20, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 2, 4, and 6 of Charge III, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications, to include the decision as to Charge III, Specification 3, is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), United States v. Nealy, 71 M.J. 73, 78 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., concurring in the result), and United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28, 36 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., concurring in the result), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0245/AR. U.S. v. Thomas A. SCOTT.  CCA 20091087.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), we note that Specification 2 of Charge II failed to include a terminal element of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006).  This omission was error, but we also note that this specification was found to be multiplicious for sentencing.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II, Specification 2, is reversed.  The finding of guilty as to Specification 2 of Charge II is set aside and that charge and specification are dismissed.  The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to the remaining charge and specifications and the sentence is affirmed.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0252/AR. U.S. v. Jesse J. BRAY.  CCA 20100029.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specifications 2 and 5, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0264/AR. U.S. v. Robert O. BOZEMAN.  CCA  20080711.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 6, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III and its specifications, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0272/AF. U.S. v. Timur TIMERHANOV.  CCA 37685.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 25, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specification 1 of Charge II, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0285/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin M. ACKMAN.  CCA 20090615.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 196 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II (renumbered), Specification 1, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0286/AF. U.S. v. Paul A. TITCOMBE.  CCA 37618.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 1, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as to Additional Charge II and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0300/AR. U.S. v. Payson C. AVERILL.  CCA 20090491.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II, Specification 1, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0317/AF. U.S. v. Ronnie WILSON.  CCA 37486.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 1, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specifications 1 and 5, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specification is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0328/AR. U.S. v. Bret A. GLOWTH.  CCA 20090925.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 9, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0331/AR. U.S. v. Jamil v. WILLIAMS.  CCA 20090619.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 4, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge IV and its specification, Additional Charge V, Specification 1, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0336/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. COVINGTON.  CCA 20090877.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 71 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge IV, Specifications 1, 2, and 3, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0354/NA. U.S. v. Markalle D. REDD.  CCA 201000682.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, April 19, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specifications 1 and 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0373/AF. U.S. v. Jose S. MONSERRATE. CCA S31649.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 22, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specification 2 of Charge II, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0377/AR. U.S. v. Randy A. GIDDENS.  CCA 20090598.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 8, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge VI and its specification, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries.

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0385/AR. U.S. v. Robert T. TOUSSANT.  CCA 20090839.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, May 14, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specification 4, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0428/MC. U.S. v. Stephen J. MCQUIRE.  CCA 201000611.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, June 6, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge III, Specifications 1 and 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0448/MC. U.S. v. Jonathan E. LONSFORD.  CCA 201100022.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, June 6, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charge II, Specifications 1 and 2, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charge and specification is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

No. 12-0474/NA. U.S. v. Brandon W. BARRETT.  CCA 201000330.  On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2012) (order granting review, June 14, 2012), and in view of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that the portion of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 1, 2, and 3 of Charge I, and Specification 1 of Additional Charge III, and as to the sentence is reversed.  The decision of that court as to the remaining charges and specifications is affirmed.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for further consideration in light of Humphries. 

 

*  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012)(Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011)(Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 10-0319/MC.  U.S. v. Nathan M. ROBINSON.  CCA 200800827.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF THE SPECIMEN CUSTODY DOCUMENT OF THE DRUG TESTING REPORT WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0497/MC.  U.S. v. Desmond J. HORTON.  CCA 201000481.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF THE DRUG TESTING REPORT WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0451/AF.  U.S. v. Pablo P. IRIZARRY.  CCA 37748.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING A DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AN ITEM SEIZED BY APPELLANT'S FIRST SERGEANT DURING A WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO APPELLANT'S OFF-BASE HOME.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0496/NA.  U.S. v. Dominic P. ALTIER.  CCA 201000361.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S SENTENCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 63, UCMJ, AND R.C.M. 810(d) BECAUSE IT IS IN EXCESS OF AND MORE SEVERE THAN HIS ORIGINAL APPROVED COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE.

 

A stay in the execution of Appellant's sentence is ordered until the Court rules on the substantive merits of the case.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0675/AR.  U.S. v. Cassandra M. RILEY.  CCA 20100084.*

No. 12-0609/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. CLINARD III.  CCA 20110705.

No. 12-0610/AR.  U.S. v. Derek A. CIBIK.  CCA 20120031.

No. 12-0611/AR.  U.S. v. Robert G. WATTERS.  CCA 20110591.

No. 12-0612/AR.  U.S. v. William R. HULL, Jr.  CCA 20110586.

No. 12-0613/AR.  U.S. v. Bryan S. FITZGERALD.  CCA 20110354.

No. 12-0614/AR.  U.S. v. Cornelius J. SPILLANE III.  CCA 20110671.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0414/AR.  U.S. v. David G. SPICER, Jr.  CCA 20090608.  On consideration of Appellant's motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a joint appendix, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, up to and including July 11, 2012.

 

No. 12-0484/NA.  U.S. v. Rayvohn D. WALLACE, Appellant.  CCA 201100300.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and the record of trial, it is noted that the record reflects that the court-martial was called to order pursuant to the following orders:  General Court-Martial Convening Order Number (GCMCO) 01-10 dated 16 February 2010 and GCMCO 01M-10, dated 21 January 2011.

 

GCMCO 01-10 detailed 12 officer members, none of whom appeared at trial.  GCMCO 01M-10 detailed 10 officer and enlisted members, each of whom appeared and were sworn.  That order also relieved, for this case only, two officer members who had been previously detailed by GCMCO 01J-10, dated 20 December 2010.  The only orders included in the record are 01-10 and 01M-10.  The record does not account for the absence of the members detailed by GCMCO 01-10.  Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellee file an answer addressing the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS MATERIALLY PREJUDICED WHERE 12 DETAILED MEMBERS WERE ABSENT.

 

Appellee's answer shall be filed with the Court within 20 days of the date of this order.  Appellant may file a reply within 5 days after the filing of the answer.

 

No. 12-8025/AR.  Michael G. NEW, Appellant v. United States, Appellee.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a reply to the answer to the writ-appeal petition granted to July 16, 2012.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 12-0172/NA.  U.S. v. Jeremy L. RAUSCHER.  CCA 201000684.

_______________________________

 

*  Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-206

Monday, July 9, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0491/AR.  U.S. v. Rodney J. GLOVER.  CCA 20100922.

No. 12-0493/AR.  U.S. v. Stephen A. TYBOR.  CCA 20111004.

No. 12-0495/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffery B.I. LANCASTER.  CCA 20100929.

No. 12-0535/AR.  U.S. v. Scott G.F. BILLINGS.  CCA 20110080.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 10-5004/AF.  United States, Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. Ryan D. HUMPHRIES, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. CCA 37491.  On consideration of Appellant/Cross-Appellee's petition for reconsideration of this Court's decision in the above-captioned case, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-205

Friday, July 6, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0603/CG.  U.S. v. Ernesto MARANJE.  CCA 1350.

No. 12-0604/NA.  U.S. v. Richard R. MOTT.  CCA 200900115.

No. 12-0605/AF.  U.S. v. Gregory L. WILSON.  CCA 37691.

No. 12-0606/AF.  U.S. v. Steven D. CASH.  CCA S31881.

No. 12-0607/AF.  U.S. v. Melissa A. MASUCCI.  CCA S31874.

No. 12-0608/AR.  U.S. v. Sean M. CHASTENAY.  CCA 20110931.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0557/AR.  U.S. v. Mac D. WARNER.  CCA 20100398.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including July 30, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0603/CG.  U.S. v. Ernesto MARANJE.  CCA 1350.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 26, 2012.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-204

Thursday, July 5, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0282/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE.  CCA 20090166.*

No. 12-0600/AF.  U.S. v. Mark W. CANANT.  CCA S26397.

No. 12-0601/AR.  U.S. v. Ross M. CICERO.  CCA 20101029.

No. 12-0602/AR.  U.S. v. David T. HENLEY.  CCA 20110875.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0048/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. JAMES.  CCA 20081163.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 23, 2012.

 

No. 12-8025/AR.  Michael G. NEW, Appellant v. United States, Appellee.  On consideration of Appellee's motion to file an answer to the writ-appeal petition out of time, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.  Appellant's reply may be filed on or before July 12, 2012.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-203

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0419/AF.  U.S. v. Jackson D. HEARING.  CCA S31959.

No. 12-0492/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy D. LOWE.  CCA 20110853.

No. 12-0527/AR.  U.S. v. Tonya M. JONES-MARSHALL.  CCA 20100649.

No. 12-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Jordan M. ELLSWORTH.  CCA 20110839.

No. 12-0533/AR.  U.S. v. Tommy C. COLLINS.  CCA 20110809.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0048/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. JAMES.  CCA 20081163. *

No. 12-0599/MC.  U.S. v. Kevin L. MARTIN.  CCA 201200041.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8028/AF.  Patrick CARTER, Petitioner v. United States, United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and Commander, United States Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar, California, Respondents.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.    

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0598/MC.  U.S. v. Samuel J. BOUDREAUX.  CCA 201100606.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 17, 2012.

_______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-202

Monday, July 2, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0408/MC.  U.S. v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS III.  CCA 200800393.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.          WHETHER THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WHERE UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAS UNDERMINED SUBSTANTIAL POST-TRIAL RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT.

 

II.          THE APPELLANT WAS INTERROGATED BY NCIS CONCERNING HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEGED CRIMES, AND TERMINATED THE INTERVIEW BY INVOKING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  APPELLANT WAS THEREAFTER HELD INCOMMUNICADO AND PLACED IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WHERE HE WAS DENIED THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH A LAWYER OR ANY OTHER SOURCE OF ASSISTANCE.  APPELLANT WAS HELD UNDER THESE CONDITIONS FOR 7 DAYS, WHEREUPON NCIS RE-APPROACHED APPELLANT AND COMMUNICATED WITH HIM REGARDING THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATION.  IN RESPONSE, APPELLANT WAIVED HIS PREVIOUSLY INVOKED RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED NCIS A SWORN STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ALLEGED CRIMES. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE APPELLANT'S STATEMENT?  SEE EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) AND UNITED STATES v. BRABANT, 29 M.J. 259 (C.M.A. 1989).

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0596/AR.  U.S. v. Michael E. ZELLOUS, Jr.  CCA 20110098.

No. 12-0597/AR.  U.S. v. Reginald D. HOLSEY.  CCA 20100479.

No. 12-0598/MC.  U.S. v. Samuel J. BOUDREAUX.  CCA 201100606.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0596/AR.  U.S. v. Michael E. ZELLOUS, Jr.  CCA 20110098.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement separately from the petition for grant of review granted to July 20, 2012.

 

No. 12-0597/AR.  U.S. v. Reginald D. HOLSEY.  CCA 20100479.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement separately from petition granted to July 6, 2012.



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