| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RIESBECK - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V RIESBECK - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1374 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/5/2014 | 5/8/2014 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RESENDEZ - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V RESENDEZ - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1378 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/13/2014 | 8/13/2014 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MORALES - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V MORALES - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion | Docket No. 1349 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/30/2011 | 12/30/2011 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V CAIN - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V CAIN - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | Docket No. 1385 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/7/2014 | 8/7/2014 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | THOMS V TOUSLEY EXT WRIT ORDER | THOMS V TOUSLEY EXT WRIT ORDER
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion | MISC. DOCKET N0. 003-12 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/27/2012 | 1/27/2012 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V STIREWALT - 58 MJ 552 | This represents the second occasion for this Court to review this case pursuant to Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the third time it has been before us. Because of the case’s unusual procedural history, a brief recitation of its background is provided.
On 17 June 1997, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members: four specifications of maltreatment by sexual harassment, one specification of rape, one specification of forcible sodomy, three specifications of assault consummated by a battery, four specifications of adultery, and four specifications of indecent assault, in violation of Articles 93, 120, 125, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ, respectively. Prior to sentencing, the original military judge dismissed two specifications of maltreatment, two specifications of assault consummated by a battery, and one specification of adultery as multiplicious. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to paygrade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for ten years, and a dishonorable discharge. On 29 October 1997, the convening authority approved the findings and sentence and ordered it executed with the exception of the dishonorable discharge. For a detailed recitation of the facts underlying the aforementioned charges, see United States v. Stirewalt, 53 M.J. 582 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2000). | Docket No. 1089 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/11/2003 | 3/11/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LAYTON PER CURIAM - 63 MJ 600 | This is an Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), appeal by the Government of the special court-martial military judge’s dismissal of a charge and specification for failure to state an offense. The charge and specification in question alleged that the accused wrongfully endeavored to impede a Coast Guard adverse administrative proceeding by seeking to substitute another person’s urine sample for his own during a mandatory random urinalysis test for controlled substances, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. | Docket No. 001-62-05 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/7/2006 | 2/7/2006 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V DALY - 69 MJ 549 | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 5 March 2010, the military judge dismissed the single charge under Article 134, UCMJ, and its four specifications. The Government requested reconsideration on17 March 2010, which the military judge summarily denied on 26 March 2010. The Government gave notice of appeal on 29 March 2010. On 17 May 2010, the Government filed with this Court the record of trial, which had been authenticated on 2 May 2010. The Government filed its brief on 7 June 2010. | Docket No. 001-62-10 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/14/2010 | 6/14/2010 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RUFF 2018 W.L. 4268537 | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellee was charged with possession of child pornography, among other things. The alleged child pornography was found on Appellee’s mobile phone by a police officer who had arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Appellee filed a motion to suppress the images found on his phone. On 28 November 2017, the military judge granted the suppression motion.
The Government gave notice of appeal of the ruling on 29 November 2017, and filed the record of trial with this Court on 21 December 2017. The Government filed its appeal brief on 10 January 2018. Appellee filed his brief on 30 January 2018.
The Government argues that the military judge erred in granting Appellee’s motion to suppress. We disagree and affirm the military judge’s ruling. | Docket No. 001-62-18 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/15/2018 | 2/15/2018 | | 2/21/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES v REIMONENQ (25 WL 1702021) | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellee is charged with attempted murder, two specifications of carrying a concealed weapon, and one specification of dereliction of duty. Appellee filed a motion to suppress statements he made to shipmates and separately to Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) agents. The military judge granted in part and denied in part the suppression motion. The Government gave timely notice and filed this appeal.
The Government asserts:
I. The military judge abused his discretion when he found Appellee did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Article 31(b) rights; and
II. The military judge misapplied the law when he found the Appellee in custody, thereby triggering the Appellee’s Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, if the Appellee was in custody, the military judge abused his discretion when determining the Appellee did not
knowingly and intelligently waive his Fifth Amendment rights. | Docket No. 1509 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/18/2025 | 6/18/2025 | | 6/23/2025 |
| 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 OSUNA - 58 MJ 879 | The record in this case was first acted upon by this Court on 28 November 2001 in a decision which affirmed the findings of guilty, and returned the record for a new convening authority’s action on the sentence. That sentence action has been completed by the convening authority, and has resulted in his reducing the earlier approved dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge, and approval again of the remaining adjudged sentence of confinement for three months and reduction to paygrade E-1. Before this Court, Appellant has reasserted an error assigned by him earlier, that the evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for two specifications alleging maltreatment of a Seaman Apprentice (SA) under his authority as an Honor Guard trainee.2 This assignment was rejected by two of the three judges on this panel during our first review of the case, with a determination that the findings of guilty were both legally and factually sufficient. As the third member of the panel, I dissented from this view, finding the two specifications of maltreatment not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, Appellant asks us to revisit the majority’s decision in this regard. In so doing, he notes that the question of what extent a service court is bound by its previous factual findings is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in the case of United States v. Riley, 57 M.J. 157 (C.A.A.F. 2002). | Docket No. 1122 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/9/2003 | 4/9/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | SULLIVAN V SCHULTZ ORDER WDISSENT | SULLIVAN V SCHULTZ ORDER WDISSENT
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-17 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/29/2016 | 11/29/2016 | | 9/1/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | STIREWALT V PLUTA - 54 MJ 925 | STIREWALT V PLUTA - 54 MJ 925 - writ of mandamus - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Decision | Misc. Docket No. 001-01 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/9/2001 | 4/9/2001 | | 8/31/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MARTIN - UNPUBLISHED 2ND OPINION | Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, Appellant was convicted by general court-martial, military judge alone, of one specification each of violating 18 U.S.C. 2252A by receiving and possessing child pornography, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of violating a lawful general order by using a government computer to view, download and store sexually explicit materials, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced him to confinement for thirty-two months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. On 6 December 2006, this Court set aside the Convening Authority’s action and returned the record to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the Convening Authority for a new action. United States v. Martin, No. 1260 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. Dec. 6, 2006). An Article 39(a) session was held on 19 December 2006 at which an inquiry was conducted concerning the provisions of a post-trial agreement between Appellant and the Convening Authority. Pursuant to the post-trial agreement, the Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended confinement in excess of seventeen months and twenty-four days until either (1) the Convening Authority determines Appellant has successfully completed a sex offender treatment program or (2) two years from the date of the Convening Authority’s action, whichever occurs later. | Docket No. 1260 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/26/2008 | 8/26/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |