Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MARCHAND - 56 MJ 630 | UNITED STATES V MARCHAND - 56 MJ 630
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Decision | Docket No. 1112 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/5/2001 | 12/5/2001 | | 8/31/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MARANJE - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V MARANJE - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1350 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/11/2012 | 5/11/2012 | | 9/18/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MAKSIN - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V MAKSIN - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1430 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/30/2017 | 1/30/2017 | | 9/1/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MAHONEY - PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: three specifications of unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ.
Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but suspended execution of the confinement in excess of 60 days for a period of six months, in accordance with the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with 65 days of confinement against the sentence of confinement. Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors. | Docket No. 1183 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/27/2003 | 8/27/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MADIGAR - 46 MJ 802 | UNITED STATES V MADIGAR - Court of Criminal Appeal Decision | Docket No. 1056 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/5/1997 | 6/5/1997 | | 8/25/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LUCAS - UNPUBLISHED | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of wrongful distribution of marijuana, one specification of wrongful introduction of marijuana onto a military installation, and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge
sentenced Appellant to forfeiture of $500 per month for six months, reduction to E-3, and a bad conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence. | Docket No. 1310 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/22/2009 | 12/22/2009 | | 10/30/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LOYA PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of wrongfully using cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and one specification of wrongfully using marijuana, a Schedule I controlled
substance, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of wrongfully possessing a military identification card that he knew to be false, in
violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for thirty days, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for one month, and reduction to E-3. The sentence was unaffected by the pretrial agreement, and the Convening Authority approved it as adjudged. | Docket No. 1248 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/6/2006 | 2/6/2006 | | 10/24/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LONGWELL PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of two specifications of making false official statements, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 150 days. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. | Docket No. 1231 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/3/2005 | 6/3/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIVINGSTONE 78 M.J. 619 | Members sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of sexual assault, one specification of extortion (which the military judge later conditionally dismissed), and two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Articles 120, 127, and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to dismissal and confinement for eight years, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant now asserts the following:
(1) The evidence was factually insufficient to support one of his two sexual assault convictions;
(2) The military judge abused his discretion when ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412;
(3) The evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support both convictions for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman;
(4) The military judge reversibly erred by failing to instruct on mens rea with regard to the conduct unbecoming charges;
(5) The prosecutor committed misconduct when she undertook a discovery obligation she would not normally have and failed to exercise due diligence in executing that obligation, to Appellant’s prejudice; and
(6) Participation by a Special Victims’ Counsel amounted to private counsel providing unauthorized assistance to the trial counsel, to Appellant’s prejudice. | Docket No. 1448 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/5/2018 | 10/5/2018 | | 10/15/2018 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LINDSEY - 67 MJ 774 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of dishonorably failing to pay a debt, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for 120 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. | Docket No. 1295 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/12/2009 | 6/12/2009 | | 10/30/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIND - UNPUBLISHED | This case was previously decided by this Court on 31 January 2007. The Court found, in part, that although Appellant failed to show that he was unrepresented by his trial defense counsel during any portion of the post-trial phase of the case, his defense counsel was deficient
in failing to contact Appellant regarding clemency. As a result, the Court granted relief. | Docket No. 1228 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/7/2007 | 9/7/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIND - 64 MJ 611 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the
following offenses: one specification of wrongfully using ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance, and one specification of wrongfully distributing ecstasy, both in violation of Article
112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a; one specification of conspiring to possess, use, and distribute ecstasy, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 881; and one specification of making a false official statement with intent to deceive, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 907. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to
E-1, forfeiture of $938.00 pay per month for four months, confinement for four months, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. | Docket No. 1228 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/31/2007 | 1/31/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 59 MJ 561 | On 30 August 2002, this Court affirmed the findings of guilty in this case, but set aside that portion of the Convening Authority’s action relating to the sentence, due to an improper provision in the pretrial agreement requiring Appellant to request a bad conduct discharge (BCD). United States v. Libecap, 57 M.J. 611, 618 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). The record was returned to the Convening Authority who was authorized to disapprove the adjudged sentence of a BCD, confinement for six months, forfeiture of $1,134.00 pay per month for six months, and reduction to E-1, and order a sentence rehearing, or he could approve either the sentence previously approved, minus the BCD, or a lesser sentence without the BCD. The Convening Authority chose to disapprove the sentence and order a sentence rehearing. Consistent with our decision, the original pretrial agreement remained in effect absent the improper provision. At the rehearing before a judge alone, the military judge imposed a BCD, confinement for 125 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for a BCD, confinement for 100 days, and reduction to E-1, with credit given for 100 days confinement previously served following the original sentence. The Convening Authority also expressly waived, in favor of Appellant’s dependent, any forfeitures arising by operation of Article 58b, UCMJ. Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors. | Docket No. 1154 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/15/2003 | 8/15/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 57 MJ 608 | UNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 57 MJ 608
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1154 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/30/2002 | 8/30/2002 | | 9/15/2017 |
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | United States V LELAND (UNPUBLISHED) | United States V LELAND (UNPUBLISHED)
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1357 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/23/2013 | 1/23/2013 | | 9/18/2017 |