• 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 HOLZ - 59 MJ 926Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, two specifications of wrongful distribution of marijuana, and one specification of wrongful introduction of marijuana onto an installation under the control of the armed forces, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, sixty days confinement, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, as allowed by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority credited Appellant with eight days of confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984).Docket No. 1198Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/18/20045/18/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HOLLAND - 68 MJ 576Appellant 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 two specifications of distributing cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification each of indecent acts with a minor, indecent exposure, and wrongfully providing alcohol to minors, all in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for fifteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.Docket No. 1301Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/8/200912/8/200910/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HOLBROOK 64 MJ 553Appellant 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 fraudulent enlistment, in violation of Article 83, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of false official statement with the intent to deceive, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of damage to military property of the United States, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ; one specification of reckless driving, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, one specification of wrongful introduction of marijuana, one specification of wrongful introduction of cocaine, two specifications of wrongful distribution of cocaine, and one specification of wrongful distribution of marijuana, all in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of leaving the scene of an accident and one specification of communicating a threat, both in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for eleven months, which he credited with fifty-seven days of pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and suspended confinement in excess of ten months until six months after Appellant’s release from confinement, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement. In addition, the Convening Authority waived automatic forfeitures imposed pursuant to Article 58b, UCMJ, until 31 December 2005, with pay and allowances to be paid to Appellant’s spouse.Docket No. 1251Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/10/20071/10/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HINOJOSA - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HINOJOSA - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1429Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 1/23/20171/23/20179/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HEXIMER - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HEXIMER - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1434Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 4/17/20174/17/20179/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HEWITT 61 MJ 703Appellant 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 the following offenses: one specification of forcible sodomy, in violation of Article 125, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of indecent assault and one specification of wrongfully providing alcoholic beverage to an individual under the age of twenty-one years, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for eighty-four months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of sixty months for twelve months from the date of Appellant’s release from confinement as required by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with six days of pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984).Docket No. 1220Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/30/20053/30/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUnited States V HENRY (UNPUBLISHED)United States V HENRY (UNPUBLISHED) Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1371Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/11/20139/11/20139/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HENDERSON - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HENDERSON - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1426Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 1/5/20171/5/20179/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HEGEL - 52 MJ 778UNITED STATES V HEGEL - 52 MJ 778 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal DecisionDocket No. 1082Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/16/20003/16/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HEDLUND - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant 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 nine specifications of use, three specifications of distribution, and one specification of introduction to a military vessel of various illegal drugs, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); four specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; one specification of attempted larceny, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ; two specifications of forgery, in violation of Article 123, UCMJ; one specification of unauthorized absence terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and one specification of missing movement, in violation of Article 87, UCMJ.Docket No. 1261Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/11/20077/11/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HAYNES - 53 MJ 738UNITED STATES V HAYNES - 53 MJ 738 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal DecisionDocket No. 1126Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/24/20007/24/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HAYES - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HAYES - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1353Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/19/20123/19/20129/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HARRIS (MERITS)Per curiam: A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of domestic violence, in violation of Article 128b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-2 and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly. 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. 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. 1496Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/29/20248/29/20248/30/2024
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HARRIS - 67 MJ 550Appellant 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 each of wrongfully distributing MDMA (ecstasy), wrongfully using MDMA (ecstasy), and wrongfully using cocaine, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for ninety days, forfeiture of $800 per month for three months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and suspended confinement in excess of sixty days for a period of twelve months from the date of the Convening Authority’s action, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1279Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/17/200810/17/200810/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HARPOLE (2ND) OPINION 79 M.J. 737general 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. 1420Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/18/201912/18/201912/19/2019
Page 20 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