| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GARCIA E - 68 MJ 561. | Appellant was tried by a 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: two specifications of insubordinate conduct toward a superior petty officer, in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; two specifications of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of committing an indecent act, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for eight 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 did not affect the sentence. | Docket No. 1304 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/3/2009 | 11/3/2009 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GARCIA - 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 unauthorized absence, of one day and ten days, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of flight from apprehension in violation of Article 95, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana and methamphetamine, in violation of Article 112a. | Docket No. 1195 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/4/2004 | 2/4/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GAMMONS (GAMMONS II) - 52 MJ 737 | UNITED STATES V GAMMONS (GAMMONS II) - 52 MJ 737 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal Decision | Docket No. 1078 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/28/2000 | 2/28/2000 | | 8/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GAMMONS - RECONSIDERATION - 48 MJ 762 | UNITED STATES V GAMMONS - RECONSIDERATION - 48 MJ 762 - CGCCA Opinion | Docket No. 1078 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/19/1998 | 6/19/1998 | | 8/29/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FRYE - PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his guilty pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of conspiracy with Coast Guard Seaman Recruit Aaron M. Freeman to commit larceny of $600 from a Coast Guard shipmate, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful appropriation of a shipmate's Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card, and one specification of larceny of $400 from that shipmate, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for 100 days, and a fine of $200. The convening authority approved the BCD, the fine of $200, and a reduced period of confinement of 75 days, which was within the terms of the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned two errors both of which are rejected as described below. | Docket No. 1173 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/20/2003 | 3/20/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FREEMAN - PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his guilty pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of conspiracy with Coast Guard Fireman Apprentice James R. Frye to commit larceny of $600 from a Coast Guard shipmate, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of larceny of a shipmate's Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card, and two specifications of larceny of $100 from that shipmate, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for four months, and a fine of $300. The convening authority approved the BCD, the fine of $300, and a reduced period of confinement of 75 days, which was within the terms of the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned three errors, all of which are rejected as described below. | Docket No. 1174 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/20/2003 | 3/20/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FRAZIER - 51 MJ 501 | UNITED STATES V FRAZIER - UNPUBLISHED - CGCCA Opinion | Docket No. 1098 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/26/1999 | 5/26/1999 | | 8/29/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FRANKEL - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V FRANKEL - UNPUBLISHED | Docket No. 1091 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/20/1998 | 11/20/1998 | | 8/29/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FRANCHINO - 48 MJ 875 | UNITED STATES V MCBRIDE - UNPUBLISHED - CGCCA Opinion | Docket No. 1072 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/25/1998 | 8/25/1998 | | 8/29/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FLORES (80 M.J. 501) | After a General Court-Martial of officer members returned a verdict against Appellee, the military judge declared a mistrial. The Government appeals. We consider three questions:
(1) whether Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), confers jurisdiction over appeals of mistrial declarations;
(2) whether Appellee waived his opportunity for a mistrial by declining to request one pre-verdict; and
(3) whether the military judge abused his discretion by declaring a mistrial.
We conclude that we have jurisdiction, that Appellee did not waive his opportunity for a mistrial, and that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in declaring one. We thus deny the Government’s appeal.
Background
The impetus for the mistrial was that evidence that had been the subject of extensive litigation and expressly ruled inadmissible was, nonetheless, inadvertently provided to the members as they retired to deliberate on findings. Appellee was charged with abusive sexual contact of two shipmates, assault consummated by battery of one of them, and obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 120, 128, and 134, UCMJ.1 Prior to trial, the Government provided notice under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b), Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2019 ed.), that it intended to introduce evidence that a third, non-participating witness, Fireman (FN) A.J., alleged that Appellee sexually assaulted her as well. After the Defense moved to suppress the evidence, the Government responded that the evidence was needed to prove obstruction of justice because it was the investigation into FN A.J.’s allegation that Appellee allegedly obstructed. | Docket No. 001-62-20 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/1/2020 | 6/1/2020 | | 6/2/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FISHER 2018 W.L. 4267286 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for six months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. At a post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, session, acknowledging the mandatory minimum sentence of a dishonorable discharge, the military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for ninety days. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
Before this court, Appellant has assigned the following errors:
I. The evidence is not factually and legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty to the sole specification.
II. Article 120(b)(3), UCMJ, is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to define what level of impairment renders a person incapable of consenting.
III. The military judge erred by excluding evidence pursuant to M.R.E. 412 when that evidence was constitutionally required.
After due consideration of the credibility of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient, and we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Appellant’s guilt. Accordingly, we summarily reject the first assignment. We discuss the other issues and affirm. | Docket No. 1444 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/8/2018 | 3/8/2018 | | 3/19/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FELS - PER CURIAM | UNITED STATES V FELS - PER CURIAM
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | Docket No. 1165 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/23/2002 | 5/23/2002 | | 9/15/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FAZO - 63 MJ 730 | Appellant was tried by a special court-martial, military judge alone. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of desertion with intent to shirk important service, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of missing movement, in violation of Article 87, UCMJ. Appellant was acquitted of a third charge. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for three months. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended all confinement in excess of sixty days for six months from the date of the Convening Authority’s action | Docket No. 1239 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/25/2006 | 5/26/2006 | | 10/25/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FAY - 59 MJ 747 | 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: one specification of wrongfully distributing MDA and MDMA, the Schedule I controlled substances commonly known as “Ecstasy,” and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance; and one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1189 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/3/2004 | 3/3/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FAUNTLEROY - UNPUBLISHED | UNITED STATES V FAUNTLEROY - UNPUBLISHED
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Order | Docket No. 1375 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/21/2014 | 5/21/2014 | | 9/18/2017 |