UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-246

Friday, September 30, 2005


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0183/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin N. GRANT.  CCA 20030591.

No. 05-0562/AR.  U.S. v. Scott S. DAVIS.  CCA 20010469.

No. 05-0577/AF.  U.S. v. Scott W. SCHRAFF.  CCA S30504.

No. 05-0687/MC.  U.S. v. Hyun T. HONG.  CCA 200500504.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0544/AF.  U.S. v. Michael E. LYNCH.  CCA 35659.*/

No. 05-0773/AR.  U.S. v. James O. MIDDLETON.  CCA 20020797.

No. 05-0774/AR.  U.S. v. James H. WRAY, III.  CCA 20040390.

No. 05-0775/AF.  U.S. v. Adam R. LOPEZ.  CCA 35820.

No. 05-0776/AF.  U.S. v. Clinton C. THORNTON.  CCA 35563.

No. 05-0777/MC.  U.S. v. Jahmal R. CLARK.  CCA 200300254.

No. 05-0778/NA.  U.S. v. Timothy P. DARVILLE.  CCA 200400027.

No. 05-0779/MC.  U.S. v. Jermaine M. CLAY.  CCA 200101952.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 05-8043/NA.  United States, Appellee, v. Norbert Basil MacLEAN III, Appellant.  CCA 9202821.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on August 23, 2005, and placed on the docket this 30th day of September, 2005.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said writ-appeal is denied.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – FILINGS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 05-8043/NA.  United States, Appellee, v. Norbert Basil MacLEAN III, Appellant.  CCA 9202821.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

Misc. No. 05-8044/NA.  United States, Appellee, v. Roger A. HOUSE, Appellant.  CCA 200500855.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on August 23, 2005, and placed on the docket this 30th day of September, 2005.

 

     Appellee shall file an answer on or before October 11, 2005.

 

     Appellant may file a reply within five days after the filing of Appellee’s answer.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0004/AR.  U.S. v. Kimberly E. DOBSON.  CCA 20000098.  Appellant's motion to attach document and to provide information in response to bench question granted.

 

No. 05-0300/NA.  U.S. v. Henry A. MAGYARI.  CCA 9801499.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file brief granted, up to and including October 28, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0719/NA.  U.S. v. Erica D. MONTGOMERY.  CCA 200401080.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 31, 2005.

 

No. 05-0723/AF.  U.S. v. Ebony D. FRISON.  CCA 35860.  Appellant's motion to submit petition for grant of review out of time granted; Appellant shall file a supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before October 31, 2005; and Appellee may file an answer within thirty days after the filing of Appellant’s supplement.

 

No. 05-0746/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth J. COGHILL.  CCA S30654.  Appellant's motion to submit petition for grant of review out of time granted; Appellant shall file a supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before October 31, 2005; and Appellee may file an answer within thirty days after the filing of Appellant’s supplement.

___________

 

*/  Second petition filed in this case.

 
ANNOUNCEMENT

by the

 

CLERK OF THE COURT

 

of the

 

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY OF

 

COURT WORKLOAD STATISTICS

 

FOR THE OCTOBER 2005 TERM OF COURT

 

 

I.  CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2004

 

    Master Docket ..............................  51

    Petition Docket ............................ 215

    Miscellaneous Docket .......................   6

    TOTAL ...................................... 272

 

ii. CUMULATIVE FILINGS

 

    Master Docket .............................. 149

    Petition Docket ............................ 779

    Miscellaneous Docket .......................  44

    TOTAL ...................................... 972

 

III. CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

 

    Master Docket .............................. 113

    Petition Docket ............................ 742

    Miscellaneous Docket .......................  44

    TOTAL ...................................... 899

 

iV. CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2005

 

    Master Docket ..............................  87*/

    Petition Docket ............................ 252

    Miscellaneous Docket .......................   6

    TOTAL ...................................... 347

 

___

*/  Comparative Master Docket figures for the past 10 years are: 51 (FY04); 49 (FY03); 50 (FY02); 60 (FY01); 70 (FY00); 77 (FY99); 105 (FY98); 289 (FY97); 73 (FY96); 105 (FY95).

 

V.  CASES ON MASTER DOCKET CARRIED OVER TO OCTOBER 2006

    TERM OF COURT

 

AWAITING ORAL ARGUMENT OR FINAL DISPOSITION (60)

 

         99-0911/MC - ANDERSON

         02-0224/AF - BREWER

         02-0759/AR - HOLMES

         03-0072/AF – LOVETT

         03-0223/AF - DEES

         03-0256/AR – BOWLEY

         03-0270/AF – POLFLIET, Jr.

         03-0293/AF - MARTENS

         03-0382/AR - BALDWIN

         03-0390/AF - BILLQUIST

         03-0394/AF – GONZALEZ, Jr.

         03-0629/AF – VON BERGEN

         04-0214/AF - BRINKLEY

         04-0246/AR - KISALA

         04-0306/AR - BURKEEN

         04-0359/AR - SHELTON

         04-0411/AF - MORRIS

         04-0428/AF - CENDEJAS

         04-0470/AR - HILL

         04-0578/AR - WOLFORD

         04-0604/NA - FORNEY

         04-0606/AF - COHEN

         04-0698/MC - MORENO

         04-0699/AF – FULLER

         04-0720/AF - FREDERICKSON

         04-0797/AR – CHRISTIAN

         04-0801/MC - HARVEY

         05-0004/AR - DOBSON

         05-0013/AR - LOPEZ

         05-0015/AR – SHIFFLETT

         05-0047/MC - HANEY

         05-0058/NA - COSBY

         05-0072/MC – PARKER

         05-0077/AF - POPE

         05-0101/AF - BEAN

         05-0103/MC - STEPHENS

         05-0117/MC – RIBAUDO

         05-0136/AF - BRISBANE

         05-0149/AR - KING

         05-0157/NA – LUKE

         05-0172/MC - HARMON

         05-0195/AF - RODERICK

         05-0211/AR – JONES

         05-0220/AF - CONKLIN

         05-0242/AR - LONNETTE

         05-0244/MC - ROSENTHAL

         05-0255/AF – GOSSELIN II

         05-0260/AF – LANE

         05-0266/MC - CRAWFORD

         05-0271/NA - POLITTE

         05-0280/AF – REGAN

         05-0288/AR – ALEMAN

         05-0310/AF – REILY, Jr.

         05-0311/AF – STONE

         05-0320/AR – STAPP

         05-0403/AF – CARY, Jr.

         05-0447/AF – WALSWORTH

         05-5002/MC – LONG

         05-5003/AF – HARDING

 

AWAITING BRIEFS (27)

 

         04-0442/AF - MOFFEIT

         04-0799/NA - MILLER

         05-0127/MC - TOOHEY

         05-0159/AR - WILCOX

         05-0165/NA – OSHESKIE

         05-0235/NA - ALLISON

         05-0236/MC – BOYD

         05-0262/AR – BUBER

         05-0263/MC - SIMMONS

         05-0270/NA – RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA

         05-0274/MC & 05-5001/MC - QUINTANILLA

         05-0278/MC - CRAIG

         05-0287/MC - TENNEY

         05-0300/NA - MAGYARI

         05-0341/NA - CAPERS

         05-0363/NA – MCKEEL

         05-0374/AF – JAMES

         05-0381/AF – STEWART

         05-0405/NA – DEARING

         05-0417/AF – MADIGAN

         05-0423/CG – BUNGERT

         05-0462/AF – GASTON

         05-0505/MC - SCHWARTZ

         05-0506/NA - JOHNSON

         05-0508/MC - JOHNSTON

         05-0521/MC - ROSE

         05-0548/NA - STANTON

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-245

Thursday, September 29, 2005

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0417/AF.  U.S. v. Patricia C. MADIGAN.  CCA 35087.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY RULING THAT THE PURPORTED POSITIVE BLOOD LAB TEST FOR DIAZEPAM WAS ADMISSIBLE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DENIED THE DEFENSE ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE BY DESTROYING THE BLOOD SAMPLE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0386/AR.  U.S. v. Eric D. SMITH.  CCA 20021214.

No. 05-0481/AF.  U.S. v. Randall D. MCPHERSON.  CCA 35506.

No. 05-0582/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel P. JUDGE.  CCA 20030952.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 05-0262/AR.  Scott A. BUBER.  CCA 20000777.  On consideration of Appellee’s petitions for reconsideration of this Court’s orders issued on March 30, 2005, it is ordered that said petitions for reconsideration are hereby denied.

 

On August 22, 2000, Appellant was convicted of making a false official statement, unpremeditated murder, and assault on a child under the age of 16.  On January 12, 2005, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed only the finding of guilty to making a false official statement.  Rule 19 of the Court of Criminal Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure allows either party to file a motion for reconsideration within thirty days “[p]rovided a petition for grant of review or certificate for review has not been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.”  Appellant filed a petition for grant of review with this Court on January 24, 2005.  The Government did not file a petition for reconsideration with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals before January 24, 2005.

 

On January 26, 2005, the Government filed a motion in this Court to dismiss Appellant’s petition for grant of review.  On February 11, 2005, the Government filed a second motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition for grant of review.  On the same date, the Government also filed a motion for reconsideration by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.  On February 23, 2005, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals returned the Government’s motion for reconsideration to counsel without taking action on the ground that it no longer had jurisdiction.  This Court denied both motions to dismiss on March 4, 2005.

 

On March 10, 2005, the Government filed a motion asking this Court to remand the case in order that the court below might entertain the Government’s motion for reconsideration.  The motion for remand was denied on March 30, 2005.  On March 21, 2005, the Government filed a motion for extension of time to file its certificate of review.  On March 30, 2005, this Court denied the motion for extension of time.

 

On April 11, 2005, the Government filed two petitions for reconsideration asking this Court to reconsider its rulings on

the motion for remand and the motion for extension of time to file a certificate of review.

 

A petition for reconsideration is discretionary.  According to Rule 32 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Rules of Practice and Procedure, “[t]he petition shall state with particularity the points of law or fact which, in the opinion of the party seeking reconsideration, the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the petition as the party desires to present.  Petitions are not to contain merely a restatement of arguments already presented.”  As we have previously held, “[t]o be successful on a petition for reconsideration, the petitioner must demonstrate that the Court misconstrued or overlooked an issue of law or fact.”  United States v. Wiesen, 57 M.J. 48, 49 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  United States v. Ward, 54 M.J. 390, 391 (C.A.A.F. 2001).

 

The Government’s petitions for reconsideration do not demonstrate how the decisions in question misconstrued or overlooked an issue of law or fact.  Accordingly, the Government’s motions for reconsideration are denied.

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):

 

     C.A.A.F. Rule 33 allows the Court to suspend our Rules for “good cause.”  The majority fails to exercise its discretionary authority to allow the Government to seek reconsideration or certification of the major offenses, unpremeditated murder and assault of a child under the age of sixteen, while at the same time allowing the petitioner to block such review by “rac[ing] to the courthouse door” with a minor offense of making a false official statement.  Buber v. Harrison, 61 M.J. 70, 71 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Crawford, J., dissenting).  In contrast, rather than dismissing a petition because it was filed more than 200 days late in United States v. Jones, 61 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(order), this Court exercised its discretion and required appellant to show cause why the Government’s motion to dismiss should not be granted.  Likewise, in United States v. Mota, 61 M.J. 284 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(order), we denied the Government’s motion to dismiss even though the defense’s explanation for the delay was not satisfactory.  A third example of exercising our discretion is United States v. Tamez, 61 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(order).  The decision of the court of criminal appeals was served on the appellate defense counsel with a power of attorney and constructively served on appellant.  In response to the Government’s motion to dismiss in Tamez, this Court granted review on a number of issues including the following:

 

I.  IF A SERVICE MEMBER HAS EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY REGARDING APPELLATE RIGHTS:

    

A.   WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, SHOULD THIS COURT GIVE TO THE PROVISIONS IN A POWER OF ATTORNEY THAT PROVIDE FOR APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL TO:

 

(1)  ACCEPT SERVICE OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR PURPOSES OF STARTING THE 60-DAY TIME PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 67(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b) (2000)?

 

(2)  DECIDE WHETHER TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW OR TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION THIS COURT FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 67(a)(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(3) (2000)?

 

B.   UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, MAY APPELLATE COUNSEL APPOINTED UNDER ARTICLE 70, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 870 (2000)  DECIDE TO NOT PETITION THIS COURT FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000) WITHOUT ATTEMPTING FIRST TO CONTACT APPELLANT?

 

III. WHAT ARE AN APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S RESPONSIBILITIES TO APPELLANT ONCE COUNSEL HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS --

 

A.   WHEN A POWER OF ATTORNEY REGARDING APPELLATE RIGHTS HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY APPELLANT?

 

B.   WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH POWER OF ATTORNEY?

 

     In United States v. Beasley, 61 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(petition filed), the record establishes actual service, i.e., a personally signed receipt by an attorney possessing a power of attorney.  Additionally, there was constructive service.  But even though the petition was over six months late, despite the various methods of service, the Court has not granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.

 

     Just as there was “good cause” for us to exercise our discretion in favor of the defense in the cases cited above, it also serves the interests of justice at least to allow the Government the opportunity to present its case on the major offense.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0183/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin N. GRANT.  CCA 20030591.  Appellant's motion to attach Defense Appellate Exhibits A and B granted.

 

No. 05-0716/NA.  U.S. v. Kevin C. BROWN.  CCA 9901754.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 28, 2005.

 

No. 05-0718/AR.  U.S. v. John L. BOBERG.  CCA 20031084.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 31, 2005.

 

No. 05-0720/AR.  U.S. v. Gregory J. REED II.  CCA 20040619.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 31, 2005.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0238/AF.  U.S. v. John C. HARRIS.  CCA 34918.

No. 04-0392/AF.  U.S. v. Sean W. GRIGGS.  CCA 34739.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-244

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0270/NA.  U.S. v. Roberto RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA.  CCA 9900859.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY (1) VIOLATING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ORDERS REGARDING WITNESS SEQUESTRATION; (2) BY IMPROPERLY COACHING THE SIX-YEAR-OLD COMPLAINING WITNESS DURING HER DIRECT TESTIMONY; (3) BY PURPOSEFULLY ALLOWING OTHER WITNESSES TO IMPROPERLY COACH THE COMPLAINING WITNESS DURING HER DIRECT TESTIMONY; (4) BY FAILING TO BE CANDID WITH THE COURT-MARTIAL REGARDING THE COACHING OF THE WITNESS BY TRIAL COUNSEL AND OTHER WITNESSES; AND (5) BY FAILING TO BE CANDID WITH THE COURT-MARTIAL ABOUT NOTES PASSED FROM A PROSECUTION WITNESS DURING THE DEFENSE'S CASE.

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY ADMITTING OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, THE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE COMPLAINANT WITNESS.

 

III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE OF CHIEF ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN DANIEL J. ABEYATA.

 

IV. WHETHER THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE ERRED BY FAILING TO SERVE APPELLANT WITH A LETTER FROM TRIAL COUNSEL TO THE CONVENING AUTHORITY THAT NEGATIVELY CHARACTERIZED APPELLANT'S UNSWORN STATEMENT.

 

V.   WHETHER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON THE MERITS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT TOOK INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH JK BY WATCHING PORNOGRAPHIC MOVIES WITH JK.

 

VI.  WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST LEVEL OF APPELLATE REVIEW TOOK MORE THAN SIX YEARS.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0405/NA.  U.S. v. Brian DEARING.  CCA 200100291.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE PANEL REGARDING APPELLANT'S RIGHT AS AN AGGRESSOR TO EXERCISE SELF-DEFENSE IN AN ESCALATION OF FORCE SITUATION.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED A TIMELY POST-TRIAL AND APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0505/MC.  U.S. v. Jared G. SCHWARTZ.  CCA 200101043.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON MARCH 16, 1999, WAS UNLAWFUL.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.

 

No. 05-0506/NA.  U.S. v. Zachary A. JOHNSON.  CCA 200201024.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE ORDERS DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON MAY 4-5, 1999, WERE UNLAWFUL.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0665/MC.  U.S. v. Edwin L. ALVAREZ.  CCA 200301744.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0769/AR.  U.S. v. Johnny L. MOORE.  CCA 20041054.

No. 05-0770/AR.  U.S. v. Omar E. WATSON.  CCA 20020377.

No. 05-0771/NA.  U.S. v. Oliver J. SMITH.  CCA 200201846.

No. 05-0772/AR.  U.S. v. Kuahea K. MAGNANI.  CCA 20041207.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-243

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

 

CEREMONIAL SESSION

 

The Court met in a ceremonial session to commemorate the retirement of Mr. Jessie Clark, Senior Staff Attorney, Central Legal Staff.  Mr. Clark was presented with the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service for his 30 years of exemplary service to the Court.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0767/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher T. LEE.  CCA 20030826.

No. 05-0768/AR.  U.S. v. Maxie E. RICHARDS, Jr.  CCA 20030339.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0710/NA.  U.S. v. William C. TANNER.  CCA 200301120.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 26, 2005.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-242

Monday, September 26, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 03-0071/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph W. LEE.  CCA S29894.*/

No. 05-0765/AR.  U.S. v. Ernest C. JONES.  CCA 20040920.

No. 05-0766/AR.  U.S. v. Michael D. REED.  CCA 20020341.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0086/AR.  U.S. v. Stanley E. EDMOND.  CCA 9900904.  Appellee's motion to file an answer to supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 03-0369/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick L. SIMMONS.  CCA 20000153.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 21, 2005.

 

No. 04-0799/NA.  U.S. v. Timothy E. MILLER.  CCA 200400762.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file brief granted, up to and including October 12, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0266/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas A. CRAWFORD.  CCA 9901590.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file reply brief granted, up to and including September 28, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0629/AR.  U.S. v. Albert A. GEORGE.  CCA 20030308.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 7, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0647/NA.  U.S. v. Brendan C. FORNEY.  CCA 200200462.  Appellee's motion to file an answer to supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0690/AR.  U.S. v. Clinton C. McCARTY.  CCA 20040617.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 21, 2005.

 

No. 05-0691/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph E. KAUTCHICK.  CCA 20021447.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 21, 2005.

 

No. 05-0694/NA.  U.S. v. Franklin OWENS.  CCA 200100297.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 24, 2005.

 

No. 05-0708/MC.  U.S. v. Abel M. BARO.  CCA 200200429.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 26, 2005.

 

No. 05-0709/NA.  U.S. v. Charles M. BRICKER.  CCA 200001970.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 26, 2005.

_____________

 

*/  Second petition filed in this case.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-241

Friday, September 23, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0761/AR.  U.S. v. Armando AVILA.  CCA 20050234.

No. 05-0762/AR.  U.S. v. Mark K. SCHENCK.  CCA 20041237.

No. 05-0763/AF.  U.S. v. Todd A. DOUGHTY.  CCA 35991.

No. 05-0764/AF.  U.S. v. Dustin L. BRILL.  CCA 35687.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-240

Thursday, September 22, 2005

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 05-0157/NA.  U.S. v. Ivor G. LUKE.  CCA 200000481.*/

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0760/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathan R. HOWARD.  CCA 20050118.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 00-0679/AR.  U.S. v. Jermain J. BEST.  CCA 9701222.

No. 03-0678/AR.  U.S. v. John H. STEBBINS.  CCA 20000497.

____________

 

*/  Hearing held at the University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, California, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-239

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 04-0698/MC.  U.S. v. Javier A. MORENO.  CCA 200100715.*/

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0759/AR.  U.S. v. Shawn P. CULBERTSON.  CCA 20050246.

 

____________

 

*/  Hearing held aboard the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-238

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0365/AR.  U.S. v. Brian M. HEIM.  CCA 20021324.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO: 1) OBTAIN APPELLANT'S INFORMED CONSENT FOR THE SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR POST-TRIAL CLEMENCY; 2) ALLOW APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ALLIED DOCUMENTS TO THE CLEMENCY REQUEST, INCLUDING A STATEMENT ON HIS OWN BEHALF; 3) SHARE WITH APPELLANT THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S RECOMMENDATION; AND 4) KEEP APPELLANT INFORMED AS TO WHEN POST-TRIAL MATTERS WERE DUE, AND PROVIDE A COPY OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED ON HIS BEHALF.

 

     The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court to obtain an affidavit from the trial defense counsel responding to Appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.  In the course of conducting its new review under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)(2000), the Court of Criminal Appeals shall review the trial defense counsel’s affidavit and any other relevant matters.  See United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 1997).  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000), shall apply.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0365/AR.  U.S. v. Brian M. HEIM.  CCA 20021324.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0599/AF.  U.S. v. Stephanie L. FENDT.  CCA S30672.

No. 05-0632/AR.  U.S. v. Johnnie S. SANCHEZ.  CCA 20020281.

No. 05-0666/NA.  U.S. v. Kareem R. BROWN.  CCA 200500092.

No. 05-0668/AR.  U.S. v. Roland A. GARRISON.  CCA 20041032.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0757/AR.  U.S. v. Cleo SOUTHALL.  CCA 20020618.

No. 05-0758/NA.  U.S. v. Tyler L. POFF.  CCA 200500017.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0086/AR.  U.S. v. Stanley E. EDMOND.  CCA 9990904.  Appellant's motion for leave to file certificate of compliance granted.

 

No. 05-0274/MC.  U.S. v. Jessie A. QUINTANILLA.  CCA 9801632.  Appellant's motion for leave to file brief out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0381/AF.  U.S. v. Michael D. STEWART.  CCA 35188.  Appellant's motion to file brief out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0697/MC.  U.S. v. Wayne D. SZYMCZYK.  CCA 200000718.  Appellant's motion to extend of time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 24, 2005.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-237

Monday, September 19, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 02-0513/AR.  U.S. v. Juan F. DIAZ, Jr.  CCA 9900768.*/

No. 05-0749/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas GALCZYNSKI.  CCA 20040863.

No. 05-0750/AR.  U.S. v. Adam M. KRIEGER.  CCA 20041214.

No. 05-0751/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. McCANN.  CCA 20031060.

No. 05-0752/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan A. COYLE.  CCA 20021082.

No. 05-0753/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew B. MELLOTT.  CCA 20040337.

No. 05-0754/AR.  U.S. v. Derrick O. THOMAS.  CCA 20050288.

No. 05-0755/AF.  U.S. v. Richard S. WINCH.  CCA 35234.

No. 05-0756/AF.  U.S. v. Lucas A. WRIGHT.  CCA S30666.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0313/AF.  U.S. v. George E. ROLLINS.  CCA 34515.

No. 04-0669/AF.  U.S. v. Jason P. GARLICK.  CCA 35298.

_______________

 

*/  Second petition filed in this case.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-236

Friday, September 16, 2005

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0424/AR.  U.S. v. Kelly M. MEREDITH.  CCA 20021184.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO CORRECT THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S ERRONEOUS FINDING THAT IN SPECIFICATION 3 OF THE CHARGE APPELLANT COMMITTED AN INDECENT ACT ON A CHILD ON DIVERS OCCASIONS.

 

     It is directed that Specification 3 of the Charge as reflected on the promulgating order be corrected by deleting the words “on  divers occasions.”

 

     The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0442/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher P. MOFFEIT.  CCA 35159.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REASSESSING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE TO INCLUDE A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE AND 33 MONTHS OF CONFINEMENT RATHER THAN ORDERING A REHEARING ON THE SENTENCE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0424/AR.  U.S. v. Kelly M. MEREDITH.  CCA 20021184.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0509/AR.  U.S. v. Stefan E. HILL.  CCA 20030720.

No. 05-0607/AR.  U.S. v. James A. NASH.  CCA 20010800.

No. 05-0676/MC.  U.S. v. Ballah S. FORKPAH.  CCA 200500201.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0620/AR.  U.S. v. William T. LUNDY.  CCA 20000069.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals in the above-entitled case, we note that the lower court remanded this case to the Secretary of the Army for a determination as to whether interest would be paid to Appellant on the delayed payment of his E-6 pay.  Nothing in the record, however, indicates whether or not this interest was paid.  Accordingly, it is ordered that within 20 days of this order, Appellee will provide the Court with any information as to whether or not the Secretary of the Army paid interest to Appellant on the delayed payment of his E-6 pay.

 

No. 05-0157/NA.  U.S. v. Ivor G. LUKE.  CCA 200000481.  Motion filed by Shaun P. Martin, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law, to appear as amicus curiae, to appear pro hac vice and for student to present oral argument granted.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-235

Thursday, September 15, 2005

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0165/NA.  U.S. v. Frank J. OSHESKIE.  CCA 200001296.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS CASE AS WELL AS A POTENTIAL DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE OF PREMEDITATED MURDER.  IN DOING SO, THE LOWER COURT EXPRESSED A STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN APPELLANT'S GUILT THAT WAS BASED UPON EVIDENCE RELATED TO A CHARGE OF WHICH APPELLANT WAS ACQUITTED.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW WHEN ALMOST FIVE YEARS PASSED BETWEEN THE DATE OF SENTENCE AND COMPLETION OF REVIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 66, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

 

No. 05-0235/NA.  U.S. v. Reginold D. ALLISON.  CCA 200000637.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S TWO DNA EXPERTS, MR. Y AND MS. J, WERE WHOLLY QUALIFIED AS EXPERTS IN FORENSIC DNA ANALYSIS, TO INCLUDE EXPERTISE IN THE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES FOR PARTICULAR DNA SAMPLES.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN IT TOOK MORE THAN FIVE YEARS FOR THE ARTICLE 66 REVIEW BY THE COURT BELOW TO BE COMPLETED.

 

Appellant’s brief on these issues shall be filed within 15 days of the date of this order.  Appellee’s answer shall be filed within 15 days of the filing of Appellant’s brief.  A reply may be filed by Appellant within 5 days of Appellee’s answer.

 

No. 05-0548/NA.  U.S. v. Richard E. STANTON.  CCA 200000040.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S STATUTORY AND DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A TIMELY REVIEW BY STRUCTURING THE APPELLATE REVIEW ACTIVITY IN SUCH A WAY THAT APPELLANT'S CASE WAS NOT DECIDED UNTIL SIX YEARS AFTER HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0747/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth G. ROMBERGER.  CCA 20040568.

No. 05-0748/AR.  U.S. v. David J. OAKES.  CCA 20020244.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-5005/NA.  United States, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Todd R. FORBES, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.  CCA 9901454.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-234

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0236/MC.  U.S. v. Bruce A. BOYD.  CCA 200200733.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER A DELAY OF 1442 DAYS BETWEEN SENTENCING AND CONCLUSION OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, DOES NOT COMPORT WITH DUE PROCESS.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0278/MC.  U.S. v. Michael F. CRAIG.  CCA 200301772.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

I.   WHETHER A DELAY OF 1428 DAYS BETWEEN SENTENCING AND CONCLUSION OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, DOES NOT COMPORT WITH DUE PROCESS.

 

     And the following issue specified by the Court:

 

II. ASSUMING A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, WHAT RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE FOR UNREASONABLE AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY BETWEEN THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ACTION AND RECEIPT OF THE CASE AT THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS?

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0287/MC.  U.S. v. Matthew J. TENNEY.  CCA 200200727.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER A DELAY OF 1274 DAYS BETWEEN SENTENCING AND CONCLUSION OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0311/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew R. STONE.  CCA 35183.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT MATERIALLY PREJUDICED BY THE PARTIES' INCORRECT DETERMINATION THAT THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT IN APPELLANT'S CASE INCLUDED LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WHILE IN POST-TRIAL CONFINEMENT.

 

     No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0012/AR.  U.S. v. David S. SWEETING.  CCA 20020720.

No. 05-0307/AR.  U.S. v. Darlene M. McPHEE.  CCA 20020801.  [See also PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL DENIED this date.]

No. 05-0433/NA.  U.S. v. Brian K. RICHARDSON.  CCA 200001149.

No. 05-0459/AF.  U.S. v. Clinton R. CROSS.  CCA 35539.

No. 05-0491/AR.  U.S. v. Larry D. YOUNG.  CCA 20000358.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0746/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth J. COGHILL.  CCA S30654.  [See also INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 05-8034/NA.  Russell B. MULLINS, Petitioner, v. Judges of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents.  CCA 200200988.  Petitioner’s pro se petition for extraordinary relief is denied without prejudice.

 

Misc. No. 05-8040/AR.  United States, Appellee, v. Richard J. RAMSEY, Appellant.  CCA 20050604.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on July 18, 2005, and placed on the docket this 14th day of September, 2005.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said writ-appeal is denied.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – FILINGS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 05-8040/AR.  United States, Appellee, v. Richard J. RAMSEY, Appellant.  CCA 20050604.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET –SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

Misc. No. 05-8041/NA.  United States, Appellee, v. Joshua A. WHITE, Appellant.  CCA 200202259.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis was filed under Rule 27(b) on September 6, 2005, and placed on the docket this 14th day of September, 2005.

 

Misc. No. 05-8042/NA.  United States, Appellee, v. Charles W. DAVIS, Appellant.  CCA 9600585.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b).

 

PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL DENIED

 

No. 05-0307/AR.  U.S. v. Darlene M. McPHEE.  CCA 20020801.  [See also PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED this date.]

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0246/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew J. KISALA.  CCA 20000930.  On consideration of the Hearing Notice issued August 3, 2005, setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is ordered that said Hearing Notice is hereby vacated; and that oral argument will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the Court; the motion filed by Lieutenant Brian L. Mizer to present oral argument as amicus curiae is denied.

 

No. 04-5006/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER.  CCA 9601044.  Appellant's motion to stay the mandate of this Court’s decision, 61 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2005), is denied.

 

No. 05-0105/AR.  U.S. v. Steve A. JONES.  CCA 20010229.  Appellant's motion for leave to file pro se reply to Government's brief in response to petition for new trial out of time denied.

 

No. 05-0363/NA.  U.S. v. Joshua R. MCKEEL.  CCA 200202328.  Appellant's motion for extension of time for hearing is granted; the Hearing Notice issued August 3, 2005, setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument is vacated; and that oral argument will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the Court.

 

No. 05-0636/CG.  U.S. v. Heinz D. BRIDGES.  CCA 1147.  Appellant's motions to attach document and to correct errata are granted.

 

No. 05-0650/MC.  U.S. v. Keith B. WASHINGTON.  CCA 200101011.

Appellant's motion to file corrected supplement to petition for grant of review granted.

 

No. 05-0675/AR.  U.S. v. Dale E. STEAD.  CCA 20010869.  Appellant's motion to extend of time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 13, 2005.

 

No. 05-0712/AF.  U.S. v. Russell A. MINK.  CCA 35639.  Appellant's motion to file petition for grant of review out of time granted; that Appellant shall file a supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before October 17, 2005; and that Appellee may file an answer within thirty days after the filing of Appellant’s supplement.

 

No. 05-0723/AF.  U.S. v. Ebony D. FRISON.  CCA 35860.  On consideration of Appellant's motion to file petition for grant of review out of time, it is ordered that appellate defense counsel file a motion to file out of time which complies with the requirements of United States v. Ortiz, 24 M.J. 323 (C.M.A. 1987), on or before September 26, 2005.

 

No. 05-0726/AF.  U.S. v. Katia D. SALINAS.  CCA S30637.  Appellant's motion to file petition for grant of review out of time is granted; that Appellant shall file a supplement to said petition under Rule 21 on or before October 17, 2005; and that Appellee may file an answer within thirty days after the filing of Appellant’s supplement.

 

No. 05-0746/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth J. COGHILL.  CCA S30654.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for grant of review was offered for filing under Rule 20, together with Appellant’s motion to file the same out of time.  Appellee shall file an answer to Appellant’s motion on or before September 21, 2005.  Further action on the petition shall be held in abeyance pending the Court’s final action on the motion.  [See also PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED this date.]

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-5006/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER.  CCA 9601044.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-233

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0430/AF.  U.S. v. Robert F. WADE.  CCA 35458.

No. 05-0482/AF.  U.S. v. George R. PARSONS.  CCA 35500.

No. 05-0516/AF.  U.S. v. Gerardo B. GAMEZ.  CCA 35576.

No. 05-0673/AR.  U.S. v. Terrell A. HARRIS.  CCA 20050076.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0742/CG.  U.S. v. Raymond J. LONGWELL.  CCA 1231.

No. 05-0743/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew B. SLEETH.  CCA 20040516.

No. 05-0744/AR.  U.S. v. Jerome D. HOBBS.  CCA 20040631.

No. 05-0745/AR.  U.S. v. Richard L. TURNER.  CCA 20011100.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-5006/AR.  United States, Appellant, v. William J. KREUTZER, Appellee.  CCA 9601044.  On consideration of the Mandate issued on September 12, 2005, in the above-entitled case, it appears it was issued prematurely.  See Rule 43A, Rules of Practice and Procedure.  Accordingly, it is order that said mandate is hereby vacated.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-232

Monday, September 12, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0738/AR.  U.S. v. Romie N. JENKINS.  CCA 20020233.

No. 05-0739/AR.  U.S. v. John R. STEELE.  CCA 20040509.

No. 05-0740/AR.  U.S. v. Shelby F. STARNES.  CCA 20031053.

No. 05-0741/NA.  U.S. v. Trent T. PRITCHETT.  CCA 9601212.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0555/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher D. DEISHER.  CCA 35143.

No. 04-5006/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER.  CCA 9601044.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-231

Friday, September 09, 2005

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 98-0146/AF.  U.S. v. Leslie D. RILEY.  CCA 32183.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is hereby granted and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 05-0455/AR.  U.S. v. Peter T. ROUKIS, Jr.  CCA 9800587.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 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.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 98-0146/AF.  U.S. v. Leslie D. RILEY.  CCA 32183.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 05-0423/CG.  U.S. v. Christopher S. BUNGERT.  CCA 1203.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT WHICH WAS IMPROPER EVIDENCE IN AGGRAVATION UNDER R.C.M. 1001(b)(4).

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 05-0455/AR.  U.S. v. Peter T. ROUKIS, Jr.  CCA 9800587.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0735/AR.  U.S. v. Billy C. PULLEN, Jr.  CCA 20021168.

No. 05-0736/AF.  U.S. v. Jonathan A. BROWN.  CCA 35942.

No. 05-0737/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick E. TEATS.  CCA S30667.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 05-0156/NA.  United States, Appellee, v. David E. CRAWFORD, Appellant.  CCA 200100806.  Appellant's motion to file petition for reconsideration granted and Appellant’s petition for reconsideration of the order of the Court issued on June 28, 2005, denied.

 

No. 05-0329/AR.  United States, Appellee, v. Bruce E. CROUSSER, Appellant.  CCA 20010587.  Appellant’s petition for reconsideration of the order of the Court issued on August 9, 2005, denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0523/NA.  U.S. v. Rocky R. VOGT.  CCA 200401217.  Appellant's motion to attach Appellant's affidavit granted.

 

No. 05-0662/NA.  U.S. v. Martin L. EDGEWORTH.  CCA 200400745.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 11, 2005.

 

No. 05-0663/AR.  U.S. v. Lancer T. INFANTE.  CCA 20041343.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 11, 2005.

 

No. 05-0664/NA.  U.S. v. Jeffrey D. PETERSON.  CCA 200200396.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 7, 2005.

 

No. 05-0677/AR.  U.S. v. John L. ROSE.  CCA 20020598.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to September 26, 2005.

 

No. 05-5002/MC.  United States, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Jennifer N. LONG, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.  CCA 200201660.  Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to Appellant's brief granted, up to and including September 12, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-230

Thursday, September 08, 2005

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0113/AF.  U.S. v. Rodriguez L. MEDINA.  CCA 34783.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is hereby granted and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0113/AF.  U.S. v. Rodriguez L. MEDINA.  CCA 34783.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 05-0508/MC.  U.S. v. Jared E. JOHNSTON.  CCA 200301051.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ABSORBED ON JANUARY 29, 1999, WAS UNLAWFUL.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-229

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 05-0463/AF.  U.S. v. Natane L. HONEK.  CCA 35631.

No. 05-0520/AF.  U.S. v. Tawne D. NELSON.  CCA 35551.

No. 05-0541/AF.  U.S. v. Levette L. WHITLOCK.  CCA 35491.

No. 05-0549/AR.  U.S. v. Michael B. BOONE.  CCA 20040495.

No. 05-0558/AF.  U.S. v. Robert M. MCCOLLUM.  CCA 35632.

No. 05-0570/AF.  U.S. v. Shari C. LOVING.  CCA S30450.

No. 05-0576/AF.  U.S. v. David S. CURRIE.  CCA 35436.

No. 05-0602/AR.  U.S. v. Mario LEDESMA.  CCA 20021033.

No. 05-0617/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew R. EARLY, III.  CCA 20020380.

No. 05-0626/AF.  U.S. v. Billy C. SHEPPARD, Jr.  CCA 35656.

No. 05-0637/AR.  U.S. v. Shelby D. SCHNEIDER.  CCA 20050215.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 05-8039/NA.  Elva J. GRAVES, Petitioner, v. Commanding Officer, Naval Station San Diego, California, and United States, Respondents.  CCA 200501108.  Notice is hereby given that a petition

for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and request for a stay of proceedings were filed under Rule 27(a), on August 29, 2005, and placed on the docket this date.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that the request for a stay of proceedings and said petition are hereby denied without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise the matters contained in the petition during the course of normal appellate review.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – FILINGS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 05-8039/NA.  Elva J. GRAVES, Petitioner, v. Commanding Officer, Naval Station San Diego, California, and United States, Respondents.  CCA 200501108.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET –SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 04-5006/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER.  CCA 9601044.  Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court’s decision, 61 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2005), denied.

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):  I respectfully dissent from granting the accused the right to a mitigation specialist as a right of “constitutional magnitude.”  United States v. Kreutzer, 61 M.J. 293, 298 (C.A.A.F. 2005).  Between the defense lawyers in the case and the psychiatrists from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, the defense had all they needed to secure what any mitigation specialist would do in this type of case.  In addition to allowing the defense to establish a well qualified team from those hospitals, the judge granted the defense request for funding and asked them to return if they needed additional funding.  They did not.  Thus, I dissent under the facts of this case from the unwarranted expansion of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

Motions filed by Captain James Valentine to withdraw as counsel granted in the following cases:

 

No. 03-0688/NA.  U.S. v. Stacie M. SOWELL.  CCA 9901777.

No. 05-0165/NA.  U.S. v. Frank J. OSHESKIE.  CCA 200001296.

No. 05-0526/NA.  U.S. v. Terry L. MOSLEY.  CCA 200100886.  

No. 05-0609/MC.  U.S. v. Derrick L. OLIVER.  CCA 200101259.

No. 05-0610/MC.  U.S. v. Lewis L. BUTLER.  CCA 200000528.

No. 05-0611/MC.  U.S. v. Edwin J. CHRISTIAN.  CCA 200100734.

No. 05-0615/NA.  U.S. v. Shawn D. CROCKETT.  CCA 200201142.

No. 05-0650/MC.  U.S. v. Keith B. WASHINGTON.  CCA 200101011.

No. 05-0717/MC.  U.S. v. Hunter H. HOLT.  CCA 200202390.

 

No. 05-0552/MC.  U.S. v. William R. HUMPHREY.  CCA 200200787.  Appellant's motion for leave to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0653/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph L. UMPHREY.  CCA 20021051.  Appellant's motion to extend of time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 6, 2005.

 

No. 05-0658/AR.  U.S. v. India S. HAIGBEA.  CCA 20041310.  Appellant's motion to extend of time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 6, 2005.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-228

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0728/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew A. SALTER.  CCA 20031036.

No. 05-0729/AR.  U.S. v. Eliseo L. HERNANDEZ.  CCA 20041223.

No. 05-0730/AR.  U.S. v. Nathan Z. PERKINS.  CCA 20021438.

No. 05-0731/AR.  U.S. v. Annette R. EDWARDS.  CCA 20041020.

No. 05-0732/AR.  U.S. v. Lee A. HURLEY.  CCA 20041102.

No. 05-0733/AR.  U.S. v. Gustavo L. ALVEAR-AVILA.  CCA 20030485.

No. 05-0734/AR.  U.S. v. Michael G. BOOKMAN.  CCA 20040922.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0121/AR.  U.S. v. Corey G. WASHINGTON.  CCA 20030093.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, up to and including September 20, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0159/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy T. WILCOX.  CCA 20000876.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file brief granted, but only up to and including September 21, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0363/NA.  U.S. v. Joshua R. MCKEEL.  CCA 200202328.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file brief granted to October 9, 2005.

 

No. 05-0595/AR.  U.S. v. Michelle L. LORD.  CCA 20030476.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, up to and including September 20, 2005; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 05-0641/AR.  U.S. v. Harrison NEAL, III.  CCA 20040582.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to September 30, 2005.

 

No. 05-0649/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy WARD.  CCA 20000078.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 3, 2005.

 

No. 05-0651/AR.  U.S. v. Peter A. ORD.  CCA 20020961.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 3, 2005.

 

No. 05-0655/NA.  U.S. v. Peter A. LECO.  CCA 200201653.  Appellant's motion to extend time to time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 6, 2005.

 

No. 05-0659/AR.  U.S. v. Justin D. FELIX.  CCA 20030453.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to September 23, 2005.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-227

Friday, September 02, 2005

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0722/AF.  U.S. v. Peterson L. AVEO.  CCA S30701.

No. 05-0723/AF.  U.S. v. Ebony D. FRISON.  CCA 35860. [See also

                 INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]

No. 05-0724/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew J. HERMRECK.  CCA 36010.

No. 05-0725/AF.  U.S. v. Charles M. JONES.  CCA S30658.

No. 05-0726/AF.  U.S. v. Katia D. SALINAS.  CCA S30637. [See also

                 INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]

No. 05-0727/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy R. SCHROEDER.  CCA S30632.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0723/AF.  U.S. v. Ebony D. FRISON.  CCA 35860.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for grant of review was offered for filing under Rule 20, together with Appellant’s motion to file the same out of time.  Appellee shall file an answer to Appellant’s motion on or before the 12th day of September, 2005.  Further action on the petition shall be held in abeyance pending the Court’s final action on the motion.  [See also PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED this date.]

 

No. 05-0726/AF.  U.S. v. Katia D. SALINAS.  CCA S30637.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for grant of review was offered for filing under Rule 20, together with Appellant’s motion to file the same out of time.  Appellee shall file an answer to Appellant’s motion on or before the 12th day of September, 2005.  Further action on the petition shall be held in abeyance pending the Court’s final action on the motion.  [See also PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED this date.]

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 05-226

Thursday, September 01, 2005

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0249/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua K. CLANTON.  CCA 20020279.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ERRONEOUSLY FINDING PORTIONS OF APPELLANT'S PLEAS PROVIDENT TO SPECIFICATIONS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 OF CHARGE III CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE (ATM) PROCESSING FEES WITHOUT OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHING A FACTUAL BASIS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTING A TEMPORARY WRONGFUL TAKING, OBTAINING, WITHHOLDING, OR POSSESSING OF THE ATM FEES.

 

Specification 2 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:

 

In that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Carson, Colorado, on or about 13 November 2001, steal monies, of a value of $100.00, the property of PFC Jeremy M. Castaneda.

 

Specification 3 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:

 

In that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Carson, Colorado, on or about 14 November 2001, steal monies of a value of $120.00, the property of PFC Jeremy M. Castaneda.

 

Specification 4 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:

 

In that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did at or near Fort Carson, Colorado, on or about 14 November 2001, steal monies of a value of $120.00, the property of PFC Jeremy M. Castaneda.

 

Specification 5 of Charge III is amended to read as follows:

 

In that Private (E2) Joshua K. Clanton, U.S. Army, did at or near Fort Carson, Colorado, on or about 14 November 2001, steal monies of a value of $120.00, the property of PFC Jeremy M. Castaneda.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to Specifications 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Charge III as amended, as well as to the remaining Charges and Specifications and the sentence.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0249/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua K. CLANTON.  CCA 20020279.  See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0721/AR.  U.S. v. Jose F. SIERRA, Jr.  CCA 20020438.

 

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