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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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