YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE

BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
(Last Updated 2/10/2026)

In descending order, the following cases have been granted by this Court and ordered to file briefs. These cases have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Links to the briefs are provided soon after the briefs have been filed at this Court. Cases will be removed when a hearing date has been scheduled -- see Hearing Calendar or Archived Hearing Calendars-- or when summary disposition order has been published in the daily journal.

See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.

---

Thursday, February 5, 2026 [SEE BELOW OCT 20, 2025 FOR CERTIFICATE ISSUE]

Interlocutory Order

 

No. 26-0014/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. On consideration of Appellant/Cross-Appellee's certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that Appellant/Cross-Appellee shall, within 21 days of the date of this order, file a brief addressing the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. MALONE, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2026), APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVED MULTIPLICITY WITH REGARD TO HIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS.

 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee's brief     Appellee/Cross-Appellant's brief
                        Appellant/Cross-Appellee reply brief

---

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0002/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. 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 granted on the following issues:

 

I.  WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS IN A "TIME OF WAR" FROM 2014-2017 AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED. 

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAIVED OR FORFEITED APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO HIS LARCENY CONVICTION IN SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE I.  IF FORFEITED, DOES APPELLANT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER PLAIN ERROR REVIEW?

 

Supplement brief       No reply brief

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 25-0254/AR. U.S. v. Phillip E. Thompson, Jr. CCA 20190525. 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 granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SPECIAL FINDINGS WARRANT REVERSAL OF APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.

 

Supplement brief       No reply brief

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 26-0005/NA. U.S. v. Steven G. Flores. CCA 202300290. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AFTER HE HAD INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND M.R.E. 305(c)(3).

 

Supplement brief       No reply brief

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Monday, December 29, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 26-0077/AF. U.S. v. Vidarr Slayton. CCA 40583. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

 

I. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY FINDING APPELLEE'S CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT, IN PART, BASED ON MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT, WHEN

APPELLEE DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ARGUE MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT AS A SPECIFIC DEFICIENCY IN PROOF IN HIS APPEAL?

 

II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN APPLYING UNITED STATES v. MENDOZA, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024) TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT?

 

III. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DEFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE?

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Monday, October 20, 2025 [SEE ABOVE FEB 5, 2026 FOR SPECIFIED ISSUE]

Certificate for Review

 

No. 26-0014/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S SEPARATE CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 128b(1) AND 128b(5), UCMJ MULTIPLICIOUS.

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Certificate for Review

 

No. 25-0244/AR. United States, Appellant. v. Isac D. Mendoza, Appellee. CCA 20210647. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22, on this date on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION?

 

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN FINDING THAT THE CONVICTION WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT?

 

III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN APPLYING A "MAINLY BUT ALONGSIDE OTHER EVIDENCE" FRAMEWORK TO FIND APPELLANT'S CONVICTION LEGALLY SUFFICIENT?

 

Appellant's brief       Appellee's brief       Appellant's reply brief

---

Friday, May 30, 2025

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 25-0081/AR. U.S. v. Jerome J. Forrest. CCA 20200715. 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 AN APPELLATE JUDGE ON TERMINAL LEAVE IMPERMISSIBLY PARTICIPATED IN A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

 

* Judge Maggs is recused and did not participate.

 

Supplement brief       Answer brief