| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BURRIS - 59 MJ 700 | 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 attempted importation into the customs territory of the United States of 500 milligrams of Methandrostenolone, a Schedule III controlled substance, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of the of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; three specifications of making and uttering worthless checks in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ; and two specifications of dishonorable failure to pay debts, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to E-1, which the Convening Authority approved, as permitted by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1180 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/16/2004 | 1/16/2004 | | 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 | HIGGINS V RADM DG GABEL - ORDER | As recounted in the petition, Petitioner was tried by a general court-martial composed of members. He was found guilty of violating Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ). He was sentenced by members to reduction to E-2, restriction to Training Center Cape May for 60 days, and hard labor without confinement for 60 days. The convening authority’s action, dated 13 January 2003, approved and ordered executed so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to pay grade E-2, restriction to Training Center Cape May for 58 days, and hard labor without confinement for 58 days. On 13 January 2003, the convening authority issued a “Letter of Restriction” to Petitioner. The “Letter of Restriction” states that Petitioner’s restriction will begin on 13 January 2003 and will last for 58 days, to end on 11 March 2003; that Petitioner be restricted to Coast Guard Training Center Cape May; that each day of restriction the Petitioner will muster four times a day in the proper uniform of the day; and while restricted Petitioner is not to enter or take advantage of or use the following: gymnasium, auditorium and any recreational facilities located on the Training Center, unless for official business. In addition to these written terms of restriction, Petitioner was verbally advised at various times that he was not allowed to have visitors, could have visitors for two hours in the evening and, most recently, that he could have visitors for one hour in the evening. | MISC. DOCKET No. 001-03 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/21/2003 | 2/21/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | BROWN V TOUSLEY - ORDER | BROWN V TOUSLEY - ORDER
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion | MISC. DOCKET N0. 001-12 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/1/2011 | 11/1/2011 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | BROWN V TOUSLEY II - Order | BROWN V TOUSLEY II - Order
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Order | MISC. DOCKET N0. 002-12 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/17/2011 | 11/17/2011 | | 9/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HARPOLE (2ND) OPINION 79 M.J. 737 | general court-martial of officer and enlisted members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of false official statement, two specifications of sexual assault, and one specification of housebreaking, in violation of Articles 107, 120, and 130, UCMJ. The military judge conditionally dismissed one of the sexual assault specifications pending appellate review. The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for seven years, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge, which the Convening Authority approved.
This is our second time considering this case. A panel of this Court initially affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Harpole, No. 1420 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. Nov. 10, 2016) (unpub.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) set aside that decision and remanded so that a military judge could conduct fact-finding on Appellant’s claim that his counsel were ineffective for failing to seek suppression of his statement to a victim advocate on Article 31(b), UCMJ, grounds. The CAAF directed that at the conclusion of the hearing, the record of trial and the military judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law be
returned to us “for further review in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ.” United States v. Harpole, 77 M.J. 231, 238 (C.A.A.F. 018).
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. 1420 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/18/2019 | 12/18/2019 | | 12/19/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | H. V. V KITCHEN - 75 MJ 717 | H. V. V KITCHEN - 75 MJ 717
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-16 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/8/2016 | 7/8/2016 | | 9/1/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | IN RE DEMOS | IN RE DEMOS
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Decision | MISC. DOCKET No. 002-02 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/8/2002 | 1/8/2002 | | 8/31/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | IN RE STIREWALT - 56 MJ 506 | IN RE STIREWALT - 56 MJ 506 - writ of mandamus Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | Misc. Docket No. 001-01 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/9/2001 | 4/9/2001 | | 8/31/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | IN RE Y.B. PETITION ORDER (83 M.J. 501) | In the pending general court-martial of United States v. Fink, the military judge ruled that Seaman (SN) G.C. may testify that he had a sexual encounter with Petitioner a few months prior to the accused’s alleged assault of Petitioner. The prior alleged encounter has no connection to the charged sexual assault other than to contradict statements made by Petitioner. Petitioner asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the military judge to exclude this evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.). We conclude Petitioner is entitled to relief and grant the writ. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-23 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/22/2022 | 11/22/2022 | | 12/1/2022 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIVINGSTONE 78 M.J. 619 | Members sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of sexual assault, one specification of extortion (which the military judge later conditionally dismissed), and two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Articles 120, 127, and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to dismissal and confinement for eight years, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant now asserts the following:
(1) The evidence was factually insufficient to support one of his two sexual assault convictions;
(2) The military judge abused his discretion when ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412;
(3) The evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support both convictions for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman;
(4) The military judge reversibly erred by failing to instruct on mens rea with regard to the conduct unbecoming charges;
(5) The prosecutor committed misconduct when she undertook a discovery obligation she would not normally have and failed to exercise due diligence in executing that obligation, to Appellant’s prejudice; and
(6) Participation by a Special Victims’ Counsel amounted to private counsel providing unauthorized assistance to the trial counsel, to Appellant’s prejudice. | Docket No. 1448 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/5/2018 | 10/5/2018 | | 10/15/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | TUSCAN V UNITED STATES (WRIT) ORDER | On 16 November 2007, Respondent filed its Answer to the Court’s Order to Show Cause with a Motion to Attach the statement of CDR Daniel Spagone, USN, Executive Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig (NAVCONBRIG), Charleston, South Carolina, dated 14 November 2007. Respondent apparently became aware of a document regarding the investigation of Petitioner’s complaint by NAVCONBRIG Charleston, and the next day filed a Motion to Attach the Report of Investigation memo, dated 26 October 2007, from NAVCONBRIG Charleston Command Investigations to the Commanding Officer.
Petitioner filed his reply on 21 November 2007 with a Motion to Attach Appendix C, which consists of a statement of Gary M. Tuscan dated 16 November 2007; a Request for Interview (DD Form 510) with attached statement dated 6 October 2007; a letter from Gary M. Tuscan to LT Robert M. Pirone, USCG, dated 12 November 2007; a Report of Investigation memo dated 26 October 2007; and a letter from Gary M. Tuscan to LT Pirone dated 1 November 2007.
It is undisputed that Petitioner has not filed a complaint under Article 138, UCMJ. Seeing no justification to relieve Petitioner of the requirement to do so, it is, by the Court, this 23rd day of November 2007, | MISC. DOCKET NO. 002-08 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/23/2007 | 11/23/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| 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 TARDIF - 58 MJ 714 | On 26 March 2001, when we first reviewed this case, this Court set aside a twelve day unauthorized absence conviction and dismissed that charge and specification,. We affirmed the remaining findings of guilty of assaulting a child under 16 years of age and the approved sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for two years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to paygrade E-1. On 25 April 2001, this Court reconsidered and reaffirmed that decision, and, in addition, ordered confinement credit pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 1984) for twelve days of incarceration by civil authorities, which had formed the basis for the earlier unauthorized absence charge. In separate opinions to both of those decisions, I concurred with all but the affirming of two years confinement. Following United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2000), I would have reduced the confinement to 21 months based on a delay of 115 days in forwarding the record for review by this Court after the convening authority had acted. | Docket No. 1141 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/14/2003 | 5/14/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RENDON - PER CURIAM REMAND - UNPUBLISHED | On 26 November 2002, this Court issued a decision in this case, United States v. Rendon, 57 M.J. 795 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2002), which, among other things, held that the military judge should have granted additional confinement credit under RCM 305(k) for restriction that he had ruled was tantamount to confinement. Thereafter, pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) ordered the case sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to determine whether this Court erred in so ruling. On 14 May 2003, our higher court determined that it was error for us to order additional credit under RCM 305(k) for the restriction in this case. It set aside our earlier decision and returned the record for remand to this Court for further review. United States v. Rendon, 58 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2003). | Docket No. 1168 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/30/2003 | 9/30/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |