YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2010 TERM > FEBRUARY 2011

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

---

Monday, February 7, 2011

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Benjamin H. Hartman	No. 10-0291/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Kirk Sripinyo, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Elizabeth A. Harvey, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sodomy.  Granted issue questions whether Appellant’s conviction under Article 125, UCMJ, for consensual sodomy in the presence of a third person violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Alejandro V. Arriaga	No. 10-0572/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Andrew J. Unsicker, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Gerald R. Bruce, Esq

Case Summary: GCM conviction of housebreaking and indecent assault.  Granted issues question 1) whether, in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010), the Appellant’s conviction for housebreaking must be set aside because the military judge issued erroneous and misleading instructions supporting housebreaking as an available lesser-included offense to the original burglary charge; and 2) whether Appellant was deprived of his right to speedy post-trial review when over 243 days elapsed between the date of sentencing and the date the convening authority took action and whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously held that any delay was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt despite it approving only two years of Appellant’s four-year sentence to confinement.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Andrew L. Daly	No. 10-6010/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LCDR Douglas K. Daniels, USCG
Counsel for Appellee: LT Eric J. Lobsinger, USCG

Case Summary: SPCM prosecution for wrongfully engaging in romantic relationships with subordinate members of his command. The military judge dismissed the Charge and Specifications and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.  The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard requested that action be taken with respect to the following issues: 1) whether the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals erred in applying the standard of fair notice, as opposed to mistake of law, in affirming the military judge’s finding that, under Coast Guard regulations, the accused would not have known his conduct was criminal and therefore he could not be punished under Article 134, UCMJ; 2) whether the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the military judge’s ruling that the accused lacked notice of the criminality of his conduct under Article 134, UCMJ, where Coast Guard regulations state that resolution of the charged misconduct is “normally administrative,” 3) whether the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the military judge’s order dismissing the Charge and Specifications, where the military judge denied a motion for reconsideration and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the accused actually relied on Coast Guard regulations before committing the charged misconduct.  In addition, the Court specified the issue of whether Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed in view of the date trial counsel provided written notice of appeal.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.