• TJAG Home Page
  • CGCCA Home Page
  • Oral Argument Schedule
  • Appellate Briefs
  • Court Opinions
  • Court Orders
  • CGCCA Rules of Appellate Procedure with JRAP (Mar 2025)
CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LEE - 61 MJ 627Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of two specifications of attempted wrongful possession of 20 tablets of Hydrocodone, a Schedule III controlled substance, one specification of attempted wrongful possession of 17 tablets of paracetamol, a Schedule III controlled substance, one specification of attempted wrongful possession of 72 tablets of nurofen, a Schedule III controlled substance, one specification of wrongful introduction of 3.637 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, onto an installation under the control of the armed forces with intent to distribute, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); four specifications of wrongful distribution of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, one specification of wrongful manufacturing of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, one specification of wrongful possession of alprozalam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, and one specification of wrongful introduction of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, onto an installation under the control of the armed forces with the intent to distribute, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; two specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121; and two specifications of forgery, in violation of Article 123, UCMJ.Docket No. 1200Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/1/20056/1/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LECOMTE - 63 MJ 501Appellant was tried by general 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 violating a general order by using Coast Guard office equipment to view, download, and store sexually explicit materials, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of knowingly receiving material containing child pornography that had been transported in interstate commerce by computer, one specification of knowingly transporting child pornography in interstate commerce by computer, and one specification of knowingly possessing computer disks containing images of child pornography that had been transported in interstate commerce by computer, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, under Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for four years and reduction to E-4. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but, as required by the pretrial agreement, suspended all confinement in excess of twelve months for twelve months from the date of the accused’s release from confinement. In approving the sentence as adjudged, the Convening Authority also included in his action the following unwarranted language: “…and except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge will be executed.” That additional language was not included in the promulgating order’s account of the Convening Authority’s action.Docket No. 1221Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/16/200511/16/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LEAL (2) (81 M.J. 613)Upon return of the case, the Convening Authority referred two specifications to a special court-martial (Leal II) based on the same underlying conduct: one alleging assault consummated by a battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, and one alleging maltreatment in violation of Article 93, UCMJ. A panel of officer and enlisted members acquitted Appellant of assault, but convicted him, contrary to his pleas, of maltreatment. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-5 and restriction for fifteen days, which the Convening Authority approved. Appellant now raises three issues for our consideration: 1) Whether the military judge violated Appellant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by not allowing his counsel to examine the members during a post-trial session under Article 39(a), UCMJ; 2) Whether the military judge failed to develop an adequate record into alleged unlawful command influence during deliberations and abused her discretion by denying a motion for mistrial; and 3) Whether Appellant is entitled to relief for unreasonable post-trial delay We find no merit in the first issue, but we agree with Appellant that there is an inadequate record into whether unlawful command influence tainted deliberations and that unreasonable post-trial delay warrants relief. Based on both errors and the circumstances of this particular case, we set aside the findings and sentence.Docket No. 1470Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/3/20215/3/20215/4/2021
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUnited States V LEAHR (UNPUBLISHED)United States V LEAHR (UNPUBLISHED) Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1365Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/22/201310/22/20139/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LAYTON PER CURIAM - 63 MJ 600This 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. 001-62-05Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/7/20062/7/200610/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LATHAM (MERITS)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 absence without leave terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and two specifications of wrongful use of marijuana and one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, all in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for seventy days, which he credited with seventy days of pretrial confinement. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the adjudged sentence.Docket No. 1267Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/31/20071/31/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LADRIDO - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V LADRIDO - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1401Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/20/20161/20/20169/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LABEAN 56 MJ 587UNITED STATES V LABEAN 56 MJ 587 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1139Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/7/200110/7/20018/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LABBE - 51 MJ 566UNITED STATES V LABBE - 51 MJ 566 - CGCCA OpinionDocket No. 1106Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/3/19998/3/19998/29/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KUMMERER - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V KUMMERER - UNPUBLISHED - CGCCA OpinionDocket No. 1102Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/13/19995/13/19998/29/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KROLL 73 MJ 581UNITED STATES V KROLL 73 MJ 581 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OrderDocket No. 1372Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/12/20142/12/20149/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KOWALSKI - 69 MJ 705UNITED STATES V KOWALSKI - 69 MJ 705 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion 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 convicted of one specification of attempting to communicate indecent language to minors, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and four specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251 by enticing or attempting to entice a minor to produce child pornography, two specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A by possessing child pornography, three specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) by attempting to engage a minor in illegal sexual activity, and one specification of communicating indecent language, all in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for sixty-five months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but suspended confinement in excess of thirty months for twelve months after release from confinement, pursuant to the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1330Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/15/201012/15/20109/21/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KOLBJORNSEN - 56 MJ 805UNITED STATES V KOLBJORNSEN - 56 MJ 805 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1155Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/9/20024/9/20028/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KIRBY - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V KIRBY - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1433Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 3/20/20173/20/20179/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KING 60 MJ 832Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the following offenses: one specification of unauthorized absence and one specification of failing to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of failure to obey a lawful general order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of false official statement in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of wrongfully using marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; three specifications of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; one specification of wrongfully making and delivering a check without sufficient funds in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ; and one specification of pandering in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of sixty-nine days for twelve months from the date Appellant was released from confinement as required by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with fifty-nine days of pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984).Docket No. 1212Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/13/20051/16/200510/24/2017
Page 17 of 34

Oral Arguments

Pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Standard carrying out Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice [10 U.S.C. s. 940a] (revised, January 2025), an audio recording of an oral argument will typically be made publicly accessible. Audio recordings for oral arguments after the effective date of this new rule (January 2025) are below. As part of this requirement, a military service provides a mechanism by which a written transcript may be made available upon request. Contact HQS-DG-LST-CG-LMJ@uscg.mil with the reason for the request. 

 

Parties Docket Audio File Date
U.S. v. Ray 1498 MP3 2025/05/13
U.S. v. Kelley 1495 MP3 2025/03/26