| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V VICKREY - UNPUBLISHED | Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for five years, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and waived the forfeiture of all pay and allowances in favor of Appellant’s dependents as allowed by Article 58b(b), UCMJ, for six months. | Docket No. 1274 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/10/2008 | 6/10/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GARCIA D - 69 MJ 658 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of aggravated sexual assault upon a substantially incapacitated person, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of wrongfully furnishing alcohol to minors, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. | Docket No. 1317 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/3/2010 | 6/3/2010 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ROAN - UNPUBLISHED | Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of four specifications of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Two of the specifications of false official statement were held to be multiplicious for sentencing purposes. The court sentenced Appellant to be confined for thirty days and to be dismissed. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. | Docket No. 1277 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/23/2008 | 7/23/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BAILEY (UNPUBLISHED) | Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of three specifications of sexual assault and one specification of abusive sexual contact, all in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for eighteen months, reduction to E-1, a dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
This is our second review of this case. In our first review, we affirmed the findings and the sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) granted a petition for review and affirmed our decision as to findings but reversed as to sentence. United States v. Bailey, 71 M.J. 11, 16 (C.A.A.F. 2017). CAAF noted that although we had affirmed the sentence as approved—which included forfeiture of all pay and allowances—we failed to reference the forfeitures when reciting the sentence in our opening paragraph. CAAF concluded that our opinion was thus ambiguous and ordered the record remanded for clarification. Id. at 15–16.
Our omission of reference to forfeiture of pay and allowances was a scrivener's error. We now clarify by affirming the entire approved sentence, including forfeiture of all pay and allowances. | Docket No. 1428 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/5/2018 | 2/5/2018 | | 2/6/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BRIDGES - 65 MJ 531 | Appellant was tried by a 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 insubordinate conduct toward a superior petty officer, in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongfully using
marijuana, one specification of wrongfully using cocaine, and one specification of wrongfully using Xanax (Alprazolam), a Schedule IV controlled substance, all in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ;
and one specification of breaking restriction, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for 120 days,
against which he ordered credit for 104 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 applied the Allen credit against the approved confinement, but did not order the sentence executed. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence. | Docket No. 1233 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/18/2007 | 5/18/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| 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 WEDDLE - 61 MJ 506 | Appellant was tried by a special court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Despite his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of three specifications of assault consummated by a battery in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for six months, forfeitures of $737 pay per month for six months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned three errors. | Docket No. 1184 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/2/2004 | 12/2/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| 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 BRIDGES - 58 MJ 540 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer members. Contrary to his pleas, he was convicted of two specifications of indecent acts with a child in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of rape of a child under age 12 in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and one specification of forcible sodomy upon a child under age 12 in violation of Article 125, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 22 years, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority disapproved and dismissed one specification of indecent acts and the sole specification and charge of forcible sodomy, and approved the findings of guilt for the charge and one specification of indecent acts with a child and the charge and one specification of rape of a child under 12. The convening authority approved the reduction,forfeitures, and punitive discharge as adjudged, but approved confinement for only 20 years. | Docket No. 1147 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/6/2003 | 3/6/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RIVERA - 62 MJ 564 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Despite his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of one specification of attempted forcible sodomy on a child under the age of twelve years in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of forcible sodomy on a child under the age of twelve years in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and three specifications of taking indecent liberties with a female under sixteen years of age, and one specification of committing an indecent act upon a female under sixteen years of age in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three years, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority changed the adjudged reduction from E-1 to E-4 and approved the sentence as changed. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned eight errors, three of which were orally argued. | Docket No. 1216 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/1/2005 | 11/1/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V DATZ - 59 MJ 510 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of striking a Petty Officer and one specification of treating a Petty Officer with contempt in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of dereliction of duty and one specification of violating a lawful general regulation in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of rape in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and one specification of unlawful entry in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-3 and confinement for three months. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard referred the record to this Court pursuant to Article 69(d), UCMJ. | Docket No. 001-69-01 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/6/2003 | 8/6/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V UPHAM - 64 MJ 547 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of members. Pursuant to his plea of guilty, Appellant was convicted of one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman, in violation of Article 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Contrary to his plea, Appellant was also convicted of one specification of committing an aggravated assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to a dismissal, confinement for nine months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The Convening Authority approved the
sentence as adjudged. | Docket No. 1235 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/20/2006 | 12/20/2006 | | 10/25/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ST PIERRE - 59 MJ 750 | Appellant has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s decision of 21 January 2004 affirming the findings of guilty and a sentence, which included an approved bad-conduct discharge. In his motion of 19 February 2004, Appellant asserts that after the case was referred to this Court, but before our decision was rendered, Appellant was discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge. He now asks this Court to determine, upon reconsideration, whether the general discharge operated as a remission of the bad-conduct discharge, and requests leave to file a brief on this issue. In a response, the Government has joined Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, but has taken a different position on the issue presented. The Government asserts that the discharge was a legal nullity, having been issued without authority, and that, upon reconsideration, we should determine whether the discharge was valid. If we conclude that it was valid, the Government wants this Court to then decide whether the administrative discharge operates to remit the bad-conduct discharge. The Government also requests leave to file a brief on the issue. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999), it is by the Court this 5th day of March 2004. | DOCKET NO. 1193 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/5/2004 | 3/5/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| 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 | MCGARRY V CAPT KULISCH ET AL ORDER | According to the petition, Petitioner was tried on 2-5 October 2007 at Boston, Massachusetts, by a special court-martial convened by Commander, First Coast Guard District. Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of four specifications of maltreatment, of causing a false official statement to be made, and of using reproachful words. The court sentenced Petitioner to confinement for one month, reduction to E-3, forfeiture of two-thirds of all pay and allowances for two months, and a reprimand. Detailed defense counsel submitted a request to defer confinement to the Convening Authority on 5 October 2007, which was denied.
Petitioner has filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that he is currently illegally confined by virtue of erroneous rulings by the military judge prohibiting the defense from arguing an accusing witness’s character for untruthfulness under M.R.E. 608(b) and 608(c). Therefore, Petitioner requests that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate release from confinement. It is, by the Court, this 12th day of October, 2007, | MISC. DOCKET N0. 001-08 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/12/2007 | 10/12/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |