YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > 2007 TERM > JANUARY 2007

United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001

---

Monday, January 8, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Jason L. Taylor	No. 06-0319/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Craig A. Poulson, JAGC, USNR

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of carnal knowledge and adultery. Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred when it held that Appellant could not assert the husband-wife privilege over confidential marital communications because adultery is a crime against the spouse for purposes of M.R.E. 504 (c) (2) (A).

Followed by:

United States v.	Damien B. Shaw	No. 06-0403/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Rolando R. Sanchez, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Geoffrey S. Shows, USMC

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of failure to obey an order, cocaine use, adultery, and breaking restriction. Granted issue questions whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to inquire into the effect that Appellant’s medical problems had on his ability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts.

---

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Patrick M. Leonard Jr.	No. 06-0615/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Frank J. Spinner, Esquire
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jefferson E. McBride, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of receiving child pornography. Granted issues question: (I) Whether the military judge erred in calculating the maximum punishment and, if so, whether Appellant’s plea was improvident because it was based upon a substantial misunderstanding of the maximum punishment; (II) Whether Appellant’s trial defense counsel misapprehended the maximum punishment and, if so, whether Appellant was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel’s advice was based upon an erroneous calculation of the maximum punishment.

Followed by:

United States v.	Heidi F. Adcock	No. 06-0714/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jamie L. Mendelson, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of cocaine and methamphetamine use, larceny, and failure to obey a restraining order. Granted issue questions whether having found that the terms of Appellant’s pretrial confinement violated Air Force instruction (AFI) 31-205, and the Air Force Corrections System ¶¶ 5.8.1.2 and 7.1.1 (7 April 2004), the military judge erred in not determining that the violation “involved an abuse of discretion” permitting credit under R.C.M. 305 (k).

---

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 (audio)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Darryl S. Phillips	No. 06-0600/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony Yim, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Craig A. Poulson, JAGC, USNR

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy, dereliction, larceny, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, obstruction of justice, wrongfully obtaining credit card processing services, destroying evidence, and fraternization. The adjudged sentence included a dismissal, confinement for five years, and a fine of $400,000, with additional confinement of five years if the fine was not paid. The convening authority approved the dismissal and confinement, but disapproved $100,000 of the fine and suspended the remaining fine over $200,000 for two years. Subsequently, a substitute convening authority ordered the additional five years of confinement executed for failure to pay the unsuspended fine. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the conspiracy and distribution of evidence offenses, but otherwise affirmed. Granted issues question: (I) whether a substitute convening authority can order additional confinement executed for failure to pay an adjudged fine after the sentence has been approved and executed; (II) If Appellant’s contingent confinement was with proper authority, whether it was appropriate in light of other possible punishments adequate to meet the Government’s need.

---

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Kevin E. Paxton	No. 06-0695/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: James A. Hernandez, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jefferson E. McBride, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape and sodomy of a child, indecent act with a child, indecent liberties with a child, indecent language to a child, providing alcohol to a minor, possession of child pornography and incest. Granted issues question: (I) whether Appellant was materially prejudiced when trial counsel improperly commented in sentencing argument about Appellant not testifying in sentencing; (II) whether Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial defense counsel (A) failed to object or ask for a curative instruction when trial counsel made improper argument in rebuttal; (B) failed to object to trial counsel’s sentencing argument when he referred to Appellant’s right to remain silent; (C) advised Appellant to remain silent during sentencing; and (D) failed to call Appellant’s spouse and former spouse as witnesses during findings; and (III) whether the specifications of renumbered Charge III (indecent acts with BCP) were multiplicious for sentencing with the specification of renumbered Charge I (rape of BCP), or an unreasonable multiplication of charges.

Followed by:

United States v.	Antoine M. Thomas	No. 06-0350/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony Yim, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Jessica M. Hudson, JAGC, USN

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of impaired driving, and introducing marijuana onto a military installation. Granted issue questions whether Article 112a, UCMJ, requires Appellant to actually know he was entering a military installation in order to be convicted of wrongful introduction onto a military installation.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

---

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Jess M. Davis	No. 06-0439/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj John N. Page III, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Donna S. Rueppell, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault. Granted issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it required Appellant to demonstrate prejudice from the denial of his substantial pretrial right to an open Article 32 hearing, contrary to the Court’s opinion in United States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143 (C.M.A. 1978) that states the Court will not test for prejudice.

Followed by:

United States v.	Luis D. Sanchez	No. 06-0617/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Seth A. Director, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Michael C. Friess, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape and sodomy of a child. Granted issue questions whether the military judge abused her discretion by admitting expert testimony regarding the alleged victim’s medical examination over defense objection.