| 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 WHITESIDE - 59 MJ 903 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of unauthorized absence of 283 days terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and one specification of using marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for nine months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement in excess of 160 days, in accordance with the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1191 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/29/2004 | 4/29/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ABDUL-RAHMAN - 59 MJ 924 | Appellant 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: four specifications of failure to obey a lawful general order by engaging in sexually explicit behavior with four different females on board USCGC RUSH, and one specification of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing alcohol aboard USCGC RUSH, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of sodomy with a female third class cadet, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; one specification of unlawfully entering a female berthing area with the intent to commit a criminal offense, in violation of Article 130, UCMJ; and two specifications of indecent acts with another, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 180 days, which was approved by the Convening Authority, unaffected by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1192 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/14/2004 | 5/14/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HOLZ - 59 MJ 926 | Appellant 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. 1198 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/18/2004 | 5/18/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUGHES - 60 MJ 509 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial
agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of dereliction of duty in
violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of
obtaining services under false pretenses and one specification of dishonorable failure to pay a
just debt in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas,
entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for 170 days
and dismissal from the Coast Guard. Appellant also entered pleas of not guilty to two
specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ, and one specification of
unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The latter charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice. The military judge also recommended that the Convening Authority disapprove the dismissal as a matter of clemency. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of forty-five days until 3 July 2004 as required by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1196 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/21/2004 | 5/21/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V TURNER - PER CURIAM | Appellant 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 three specifications of indecent acts with a female under sixteen years of age, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for one year. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, which was permitted under the terms of the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1206 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/3/2004 | 6/3/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V COCKRELL - 60 MJ 501 | Appellant 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 unauthorized absence for one day, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful use of marijuana on divers occasions, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongfully receiving child pornography, one specification of wrongfully possessing child pornography, and one specification of watching child pornography aboard a Coast Guard facility, under circumstances prejudicial to good order and discipline, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for eighteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority reduced the dishonorable discharge to a bad-conduct discharge, which he approved along with the remainder of the adjudged sentence. Pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement, the Convening Authority also suspended execution of confinement in excess of ten months for a period of eighteen months from the date of sentencing on 10 July 2003. | Docket No. 1199 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/18/2004 | 6/18/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUGHES - 59 MJ 948 | On 21 May 2004, a panel of this Court affirmed findings of guilty in this case of
one specification of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of obtaining services under false
pretenses and one specification of dishonorable failure to pay a just debt, in violation of
Article 134, UCMJ. A majority of the panel, of which I was a member, also affirmed the
approved sentence of 170 days confinement and a dismissal, with all confinement in
excess of forty-five days suspended by the Convening Authority, as required by the
pretrial agreement. The Chief Judge dissented from the sentence determination,
concluding that a dismissal was inappropriately severe. United States v. Hughes, 59 M.J. 948, 952-953 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2004). On 3 June 2004, Appellant moved the Court for en banc reconsideration of the decision with respect to sentence. That motion was denied by an order of this Court on 4 June 2004. However, the Court determined that the original panel would reconsider the appropriateness of Appellant’s sentence. | Docket No. 1196 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/24/2004 | 6/24/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GAVIN - 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 one
specification of unauthorized absence of forty-two days terminated by apprehension, in violation
of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of making a false
official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and two specifications of wrongfully using
cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a badconduct
discharge, confinement for six months and reduction to E-1. He also determined, with
the concurrence of both the trial counsel and defense counsel, that Appellant was entitled to credit for fifty-nine days of pretrial confinement under United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, but, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, suspended execution of confinement in excess of three months for the period of confinement served plus six months thereafter. | Docket No. 1213 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/27/2004 | 9/27/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MERRITT - 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: one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongfully using marijuana in
violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of committing indecent acts with a
person not his wife, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct
discharge, confinement for 120 days and reduction to pay grade E-1. | Docket No. 1214 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/30/2004 | 9/30/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MONTES - 60 MJ 759 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of nineteen specifications of violating a general order by using Coast Guard office equipment to view sexually explicit material, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-3. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, which was not affected by the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned three errors. The Court heard oral argument on the assignments on 23 June 2004. We discuss them in turn, and affirm. | Docket No. 1202 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/19/2004 | 11/19/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| 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 | LT UPHAM V CAPT J W ROLPH - ORDER | Petitioner, who is undergoing trial by a general court-martial composed of members, has
filed a petition for extraordinary relief styled as a request for relief in the nature of a writ of
mandamus. He seeks an emergency order staying proceedings in his trial until this Court rules
on the substantive issues raised in his petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the military
judge to properly instruct the members with respect to the offense of assault by means likely to
result in death or grievous bodily injury and to allow Petitioner to withdraw from a stipulation of
fact. Petitioner also moves this Court to have appellate counsel appointed to represent him. In a
separate filing, Petitioner moves this Court to attach documents to his petition for extraordinary
relief that constitute instructions to the members issued by the military judge. It is, by the Court,
this 8th day of December 2004, | MISC. DOCKET N0. 001-05 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/8/2004 | 12/8/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SCHRADER 60 MJ 830 | Appellant 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: two specifications of violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully engaging in sexually intimate behavior with a female Third Class Petty Officer and a female Second Class Petty Officer at various locations at the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center Cape May, New Jersey, and two specifications of dereliction of duty by willfully failing to maintain a proper military relationship with a female Second Class Petty Officer and a female Seaman Apprentice, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of maltreatment of a female Seaman, in violation of Article 93, UCMJ; and two specifications of wrongfully impeding an investigation into his alleged offenses, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1197 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/10/2005 | 1/10/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V KING 60 MJ 832 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the following offenses: one specification of unauthorized absence and one specification of failing to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of failure to obey a lawful general order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of false official statement in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of wrongfully using marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; three specifications of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; one specification of wrongfully making and delivering a check without sufficient funds in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ; and one specification of pandering in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of sixty-nine days for twelve months from the date Appellant was released from confinement as required by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with fifty-nine days of pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). | Docket No. 1212 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/13/2005 | 1/16/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |