| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | IN RE DEMOS | IN RE DEMOS
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Decision | MISC. DOCKET No. 002-02 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/8/2002 | 1/8/2002 | | 8/31/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | H. V. V KITCHEN - 75 MJ 717 | H. V. V KITCHEN - 75 MJ 717
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-16 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/8/2016 | 7/8/2016 | | 9/1/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HARPOLE (2ND) OPINION 79 M.J. 737 | general court-martial of officer and enlisted members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of false official statement, two specifications of sexual assault, and one specification of housebreaking, in violation of Articles 107, 120, and 130, UCMJ. The military judge conditionally dismissed one of the sexual assault specifications pending appellate review. The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for seven years, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge, which the Convening Authority approved.
This is our second time considering this case. A panel of this Court initially affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Harpole, No. 1420 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. Nov. 10, 2016) (unpub.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) set aside that decision and remanded so that a military judge could conduct fact-finding on Appellant’s claim that his counsel were ineffective for failing to seek suppression of his statement to a victim advocate on Article 31(b), UCMJ, grounds. The CAAF directed that at the conclusion of the hearing, the record of trial and the military judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law be
returned to us “for further review in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ.” United States v. Harpole, 77 M.J. 231, 238 (C.A.A.F. 018).
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1420 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/18/2019 | 12/18/2019 | | 12/19/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | BROWN V TOUSLEY II - Order | BROWN V TOUSLEY II - Order
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Order | MISC. DOCKET N0. 002-12 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/17/2011 | 11/17/2011 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | BROWN V TOUSLEY - ORDER | BROWN V TOUSLEY - ORDER
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion | MISC. DOCKET N0. 001-12 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/1/2011 | 11/1/2011 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | HIGGINS V RADM DG GABEL - ORDER | As recounted in the petition, Petitioner was tried by a general court-martial composed of members. He was found guilty of violating Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ). He was sentenced by members to reduction to E-2, restriction to Training Center Cape May for 60 days, and hard labor without confinement for 60 days. The convening authority’s action, dated 13 January 2003, approved and ordered executed so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to pay grade E-2, restriction to Training Center Cape May for 58 days, and hard labor without confinement for 58 days. On 13 January 2003, the convening authority issued a “Letter of Restriction” to Petitioner. The “Letter of Restriction” states that Petitioner’s restriction will begin on 13 January 2003 and will last for 58 days, to end on 11 March 2003; that Petitioner be restricted to Coast Guard Training Center Cape May; that each day of restriction the Petitioner will muster four times a day in the proper uniform of the day; and while restricted Petitioner is not to enter or take advantage of or use the following: gymnasium, auditorium and any recreational facilities located on the Training Center, unless for official business. In addition to these written terms of restriction, Petitioner was verbally advised at various times that he was not allowed to have visitors, could have visitors for two hours in the evening and, most recently, that he could have visitors for one hour in the evening. | MISC. DOCKET No. 001-03 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/21/2003 | 2/21/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V WHITESIDE - 59 MJ 903 | 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 unauthorized absence of 283 days terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and one specification of using marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for nine months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement in excess of 160 days, in accordance with the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1191 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/29/2004 | 4/29/2004 | | 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 MONTES - 60 MJ 759 | 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 nineteen specifications of violating a general order by using Coast Guard office equipment to view sexually explicit material, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-3. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, which was not affected by the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned three errors. The Court heard oral argument on the assignments on 23 June 2004. We discuss them in turn, and affirm. | Docket No. 1202 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/19/2004 | 11/19/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MATHEWS - UNPLISHED | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, in violation of Article 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of assault and battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and one specification of obstructing justice, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for sixty days, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved only so much of the sentence extending to reduction to E-1, confinement for forty-three days and a bad-conduct discharge and suspended the bad-conduct discharge, in accordance with the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1451 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/11/2017 | 12/11/2017 | | 12/11/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SUMMERS (UNPUBLISHED) | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of indecent visual recording and one specification of distribution of an indecent visual recording, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.
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. 1449 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/8/2018 | 2/8/2018 | | 2/12/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V DOBSON - 59 MJ 751 | 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
wrongfully soliciting another to violate 14 U.S.C. § 88(c) (2003) by communicating a false
distress message to the Coast Guard, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for
one month, reduction to E-1, and forfeiture of $767 pay for one month, which was approved by
the Convening Authority, unaffected by the pretrial agreement’s sentence terms. | Docket No. 1185 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/5/2004 | 3/5/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V QUEVEDO 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 failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed
place of duty and one specification of unauthorized absence from his place of duty for one day,
in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of failure to obey a lawful order from a second class petty officer to report to the clinic for an evaluation,
in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; and one specification of assault on a female seaman by unlawfully placing his hand down the front of her pants, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for ninety days, and reduction to E-2. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. | Docket No. 1224 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/10/2006 | 1/10/2006 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V JUSIEL 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 one
specification of wrongful possession of cocaine, one specification of wrongful use of cocaine,
one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, one specification of wrongful introduction of
cocaine onto a U.S. Coast Guard installation, and one specification of wrongful introduction of
marijuana onto a U.S. Coast Guard installation, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge,
confinement for 300 days, and reduction to E-1. Additionally, he granted Appellant 206 days of confinement credit. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. | Docket No. 1236 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/17/2005 | 8/17/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GAVIN - 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 one
specification of unauthorized absence of forty-two days terminated by apprehension, in violation
of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of making a false
official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and two specifications of wrongfully using
cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a badconduct
discharge, confinement for six months and reduction to E-1. He also determined, with
the concurrence of both the trial counsel and defense counsel, that Appellant was entitled to credit for fifty-nine days of pretrial confinement under United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, but, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, suspended execution of confinement in excess of three months for the period of confinement served plus six months thereafter. | Docket No. 1213 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/27/2004 | 9/27/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |