| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V COKER - 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: two specifications of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of insubordination in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana and one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny of a cellular telephone, a laptop computer, a car television, an ATM card, and U.S. currency, of a value of about $3,000 in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1188 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/12/2004 | 1/12/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BURRIS - 59 MJ 700 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of attempted importation into the customs territory of the United States of 500 milligrams of Methandrostenolone, a Schedule III controlled substance, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of the of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; three specifications of making and uttering worthless checks in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ; and two specifications of dishonorable failure to pay debts, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to E-1, which the Convening Authority approved, as permitted by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1180 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/16/2004 | 1/16/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ST PIERRE - 59 MJ 750 | Appellant has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s decision of 21 January 2004 affirming the findings of guilty and a sentence, which included an approved bad-conduct discharge. In his motion of 19 February 2004, Appellant asserts that after the case was referred to this Court, but before our decision was rendered, Appellant was discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge. He now asks this Court to determine, upon reconsideration, whether the general discharge operated as a remission of the bad-conduct discharge, and requests leave to file a brief on this issue. In a response, the Government has joined Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, but has taken a different position on the issue presented. The Government asserts that the discharge was a legal nullity, having been issued without authority, and that, upon reconsideration, we should determine whether the discharge was valid. If we conclude that it was valid, the Government wants this Court to then decide whether the administrative discharge operates to remit the bad-conduct discharge. The Government also requests leave to file a brief on the issue. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999), it is by the Court this 5th day of March 2004. | DOCKET NO. 1193 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/5/2004 | 3/5/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GARCIA - 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: two specifications of unauthorized absence, of one day and ten days, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of flight from apprehension in violation of Article 95, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana and methamphetamine, in violation of Article 112a. | Docket No. 1195 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/4/2004 | 2/4/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FAY - 59 MJ 747 | 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 distributing MDA and MDMA, the Schedule I controlled substances commonly known as “Ecstasy,” and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance; and one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1189 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/3/2004 | 3/3/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V WARNER - 59 MJ 590 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one specification of use of “MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy), a Schedule I controlled substances [sic] and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance” in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge. Appellant pled not guilty to one specification of distribution of “MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy), Schedule I controlled substances and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance.” The Government presented no evidence of that offense, and the military judge dismissed that specification prior to adjournment. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, as allowed by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1187 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/7/2003 | 10/7/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RIGGS - 59 MJ 614 | 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 unauthorized absence for one day terminated by apprehension in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful use of marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and six specifications of larceny of a checkbook, a camera valued at $99, money in the amount of $600, $274, and two larcenies of $250, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1186 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/7/2003 | 11/7/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ONTIVEROS - 59 MJ 639 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was found guilty of one specification of conspiracy to steal and wrongfully dispose of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful disposition of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for six months, and reduction to E-3. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, which was within the sentence limits of the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1178 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/25/2003 | 11/25/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| 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 ISAAC - 59 MJ 537.PDF | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of simple assault in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as a lesser included offense of a charge and specification of indecent assault under Article 134, UCMJ, and to three specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The simple assault involved Appellant’s acts toward a female fireman (E-3) who was asleep in a female berthing area aboard USCGC MUNRO (WHEC 724) in the early morning hours during a port call in Kodiak, Alaska. The Article 133, UCMJ, violations involved Appellant “forcefully” (sic) picking up and spinning a female petty officer (E-4), “forcefully” (sic) picking up and carrying a female seaman apprentice (E-2) approximately thirty feet, and “forcefully” (sic) picking up and carrying a female petty officer (E-5) on his shoulder. The latter three acts occurred during port calls in Mazatlan, Mexico and San Diego, California. At the time of each of the offenses, Appellant was assigned as operations officer, third-highest ranking officer, on board USCGC MUNRO, a high endurance cutter with a mixed-gender crew of approximately 160. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty, and sentenced Appellant to a reprimand and dismissal from the service. The Government, as required by the pretrial agreement, withdrew a number of other charges and did not attempt to prove the charge of indecent assault to which Appellant pled not guilty. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement required disapproval of fines or forfeitures of over $5,000 and all confinement, but allowed approval of a dismissal, lesser forms of restraint, and other lawful punishments. | Docket No. 1179 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/19/2003 | 8/19/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| 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 SUKSDORF - 59 MJ 544 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of attempted introduction of marijuana onto a military installation in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, two specifications of possession of marijuana, one specification of use of cocaine and marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and one specification of introducing marijuana onto a military installation in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and five specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for 280 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad
conduct discharge. Appellant pled not guilty to one specification of distribution of marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and to a charge and specification of larceny of six checks. The military judge entered findings of not guilty to those specifications after the Government did not present any evidence of those offenses. The pre-trial agreement allowed the Convening Authority to approve the sentence as adjudged, but required suspension of confinement in excess of 150 days.3 Appellant also received 41 days of Allen credit for pre-trial confinement. United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). | Docket No. 1182 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/3/2003 | 9/3/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RENDON - PER CURIAM REMAND - UNPUBLISHED | On 26 November 2002, this Court issued a decision in this case, United States v. Rendon, 57 M.J. 795 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2002), which, among other things, held that the military judge should have granted additional confinement credit under RCM 305(k) for restriction that he had ruled was tantamount to confinement. Thereafter, pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) ordered the case sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to determine whether this Court erred in so ruling. On 14 May 2003, our higher court determined that it was error for us to order additional credit under RCM 305(k) for the restriction in this case. It set aside our earlier decision and returned the record for remand to this Court for further review. United States v. Rendon, 58 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2003). | Docket No. 1168 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/30/2003 | 9/30/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUDSON - 58 MJ 830 | UNITED STATES V HUDSON - 58 MJ 830
Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of one specification of wrongful possession of Oxycondone Hydrochloride (OxyContin), a schedule II controlled substance, and one specification of wrongful use of OxyContin, in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of unauthorized absence for two days, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; one specification of failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully possessing four bottles of liquor in his barracks room, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful appropriation of military property of a value in excess of $100, in violation of Article 121,UCMJ; and one specification of breaking restriction when he commenced his unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1159 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/30/2003 | 6/30/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V Drews - Per Curiam | Appellant was tried by general 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 violating a lawful general order, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of sodomy with a child, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful solicitation to commit an indecent act, two specifications of an indecent act upon a child, and two specifications of indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for seven years, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, suspended execution of the confinement in excess of fifty-five months for a period of fifty-five months from the date the sentence was adjudged. 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. The Government, having examined the record, submits that the findings and sentence are correct in fact and law. | Docket No. 1181 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/16/2003 | 7/16/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |