• 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Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HARPOLE - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HARPOLE - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1420Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/10/201611/10/20169/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HARDY - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HARDY - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1408Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/23/20165/23/20169/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HARDY - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HARDY - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1392Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 5/6/20155/6/20159/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HAMILTON - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HAMILTON - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1432Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 4/12/20174/12/20179/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HALSEY - 62 MJ 681Appellant 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: four specifications of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully using a government computer to access certain websites, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of sodomy with a child under the age of sixteen years, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and two specifications of committing indecent acts with a child under sixteen years of age, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.Docket No. 1211Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/27/20062/27/200610/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HALL - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V HALL - UNPUBLISHEDDocket No. 1093Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/21/19991/21/19998/29/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HADLEY (MERITS)Per curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four months, reduction to E-1, and 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. 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. 1492Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/20/20243/20/20243/20/2024
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GUZMAN2 (79 M.J. 856)A general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of making false official statements and two specifications of sexual assault (one of which the military judge conditionally dismissed), in violation of Articles 107 and 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge, which the Convening Authority approved. This is our second time reviewing this case. During our first review, Appellant raised the following issues: (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion by excluding evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412, Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2016 ed.); (2) whether the military judge erred by failing to instruct the members that they could not convict Appellant of both of two specifications charged in the alternative; (3) whether Appellant’s convictions for sexual assault by bodily harm and sexual assault of a person incapable of consenting constitute an unreasonable multiplication of charges; (4) whether the addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate’s (SJA’s) recommendation was deficient; (5) whether the evidence supporting the conviction for sexual assault by bodily harm is factually insufficient; and (6) whether the evidence supporting the conviction for sexual assault of a person incapable of consenting is factually insufficient (raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982)). We granted relief on the fourth issue pertaining to the SJA’s recommendation and, without reaching the remaining issues, remanded for new post-trial processing. United States v. Guzman, No. 1461, 2019 WL 2865998, at *2 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. July 2, 2019).Docket No. 1461Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/7/20205/7/20205/11/2020
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUnited States V GUZMAN 2019 WL 2865998A general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of making false official statements and two specifications of sexual assault (one of which the military judge conditionally dismissed), in violation of Articles 107 and 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge, which the Convening Authority approved. Appellant raises several issues,1 but we reach only one: whether the Staff Judge Advocate’s (SJA’s) advice to the Convening Authority was deficient. We conclude it was and remand for new post-trial processing. Article 60, UCMJ, previously conferred unfettered discretion on convening authorities to modify findings and sentences, so long as there was no increase in severity. Article 60(c)(1), UCMJ (1996); United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 145 (C.A.A.F. 2010). That changed when Congress amended Article 60 to provide that, subject to listed exceptions, convening authorities “may not disapprove, commute, or suspend in whole or in part an adjudged sentence of confinement for more than six months or a sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad conduct discharge.” Pub.L. No. 113–66 (2013). This amendment became effective on 24 June 2014. For cases where either all offenses were committed prior to that date, or where some offenses occurred before that date and some after (known as “straddling offenses cases”), the pre-2014 version of Article 60 applies. Id.; Pub.L. No. 113–291 (2014).Docket No. 1461Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/2/20197/2/20197/3/2019
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GUNDERSON - 54 MJ 593UNITED STATES V GUNDERSON - 54 MJ 593 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1135Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/30/200011/30/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GUBITOSI - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V GUBITOSI - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1329Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 4/27/20114/27/20119/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GROVER (MERITS)UNITED STATES V GROVER (MERITS) Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1387Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 1/21/20151/21/20159/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GRIJALVA (83 M.J. 669)Appellant was tried by general court-martial including enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of obstructing justice, in violation of Article 131b, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongfully broadcasting an intimate visual image, one specification of accessing a computer application without authority and with intent to defraud, one specification of using without authority a means of identification of another person, and one specification of creating a profile on a computer application with intent to defraud, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for three months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly. We determine that the findings are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty are affirmed. Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for two months, reduction to E-3 and a bad-conduct discharge is affirmed.Docket No. 1482Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/9/20235/9/20235/10/2023
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GRIFFIN PER CURIAMAppellant 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 two specifications of failing to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of wrongfully introducing marijuana onto the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma and two specifications of wrongfully using marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia and one specification of wrongfully possessing an altered military identification card, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 115 days. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.Docket No. 1237Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/17/20058/17/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GREULICH - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V GREULICH - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1437Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 7/31/20177/31/20179/1/2017
Page 21 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