| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MIERES (84 M.J. 682) CORRECTED | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 92 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-3, restriction for 15 days, and a letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
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. 1491 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/10/2024 | 6/10/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V NENNI (2024 WL 4454934) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $1,278 per month for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises two assignments of error: (1) His due process right to timely appellate review was violated; and (2) The convening authorities violated his equal protection right when they solicited, received, and presumptively considered panel members’ race and gender in selecting who would serve on appellant’s court-martial.
We conclude there is no prejudicial error and affirm.
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. 1494 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/10/2024 | 10/10/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. SHAFRAN (2023 WL 6534065) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact and one specification of providing alcohol to a minor in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
Appellant raises eight assignments of error (AOEs), paraphrased and renumbered as follows: There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for abusive sexual contact;
II. The Article 134 specification (providing alcohol to a person under the age of 21) is fatally defective because it does not allege a crime or words of criminality;
III. The military judge erred by instructing the members that Appellant was charged with providing alcohol to a minor when the relevant charge neither alleged Ms. E.F. was a minor nor cited any standard under which Ms. E.F. could be considered a minor;
IV. There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for providing alcohol to a person under 21 years of age;
V. Ms. E.F.’s unsworn statement discussing the impact of conduct for which Appellant was acquitted violated Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(c);2
VI. The convening authority erred by failing to provide reasons for his denial of Appellant’s deferment request;
VII. Dr. A.H. exceeded the scope of his approved expertise by providing improper and speculative psychological interpretation of Ms. E.F.’s conduct and gave the equivalent of “human lie detector” testimony; and
VIII. Appellant was deprived of his right to a unanimous verdict. | Docket No. 1480 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/6/2023 | 10/6/2023 | | 4/10/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. FLORES 2 - 82 M.J. 737 | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact and one specification of obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (2016). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for ten months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence, and judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises eight assignments of error, paraphrased as follows:
(1) There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for abusive sexual contact.
(2) There was a material variance between what Appellant was charged with—abusive sexual contact by causing bodily harm—and the evidence presented at trial—abusive sexual contact of a person incapable of consenting due to impairment by alcohol—that violated his due process right to not be convicted of an offense with which he was not charged.
(3) The military judge erred in instructing the members to consider the complaining witness’s level of intoxication in determining whether she was “competent” to consent, because her “competence” was not an issue to be decided by the court.1
(4) The trial counsel committed improper argument by misstating the law on consent.
(5) The military judge erred in permitting expert testimony on “clusters of symptoms” experienced by “victims” of “sexual trauma,” and the “statistics” of sexual assault cases that involve alcohol.
(6) Appellant’s trial defense counsel were ineffective for failing to cross-examine the complaining witness about her prior testimony at Appellant’s previous court-martial, or to otherwise introduce her prior testimony.
(7) This Court should grant relief for excessive post-trial delay.
(8) There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for obstructing justice. | Docket No. 1474 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/11/2022 | 8/11/2022 | | 8/12/2022 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. RICHARD (84 M.J. 586) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of involuntary manslaughter of a child, in violation of Article 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for six years, a dishonorable discharge, and reduction to E-1. Judgment was entered accordingly.
We conclude that the specification failed to provide adequate notice of the act(s) or omission(s) on which the involuntary manslaughter conviction was based and that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse and do not reach Appellant’s remaining assignments of error. | Docket No. 1484 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/5/2024 | 3/5/2024 | | 3/19/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ARMITAGE (2022 WL 4127212) | A general court-martial of members including enlisted members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification each of sexual assault and abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, reduction to E-1, hard labor without confinement for two months, and restriction for two months. The Convening Authority approved the sentence. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, Appellant has assigned five errors (paraphrased):
(1) The evidence for the two specifications of which Appellant was found guilty is neither legally nor factually sufficient.
(2) The prosecutor erred by inserting himself into the argument to the members and by making improper statements concerning Appellant’s failure to testify.
(3) Appellant’s due process right to timely appellate review was violated.
(4) The military judge erred by giving the “Talkington” instruction to the members.
(5) Article 52, UCMJ, is unconstitutional because it allows for non-unanimous findings of guilt. Failure to instruct the members that any finding of guilty requires a unanimous vote was error. | Docket No. 1478 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/12/2022 | 9/12/2022 | | 9/12/2022 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | United States V GUZMAN 2019 WL 2865998 | 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.
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. 1461 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/2/2019 | 7/2/2019 | | 7/3/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED 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. 1461 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/7/2020 | 5/7/2020 | | 5/11/2020 |