| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 59 MJ 561 | On 30 August 2002, this Court affirmed the findings of guilty in this case, but set aside that portion of the Convening Authority’s action relating to the sentence, due to an improper provision in the pretrial agreement requiring Appellant to request a bad conduct discharge (BCD). United States v. Libecap, 57 M.J. 611, 618 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). The record was returned to the Convening Authority who was authorized to disapprove the adjudged sentence of a BCD, confinement for six months, forfeiture of $1,134.00 pay per month for six months, and reduction to E-1, and order a sentence rehearing, or he could approve either the sentence previously approved, minus the BCD, or a lesser sentence without the BCD. The Convening Authority chose to disapprove the sentence and order a sentence rehearing. Consistent with our decision, the original pretrial agreement remained in effect absent the improper provision. At the rehearing before a judge alone, the military judge imposed a BCD, confinement for 125 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for a BCD, confinement for 100 days, and reduction to E-1, with credit given for 100 days confinement previously served following the original sentence. The Convening Authority also expressly waived, in favor of Appellant’s dependent, any forfeitures arising by operation of Article 58b, UCMJ. Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors. | Docket No. 1154 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/15/2003 | 8/15/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V REDLINSKI - 59 MJ 562 | On 30 October 2001, this Court issued a decision in this case, United States v. Redlinski, 56 M.J. 508, 521 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2001), which was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. On 21 February 2003, that Court reversed as to Specification 2 of the Charge and as to the sentence, but affirmed in all other respects. United States v. Redlinski, 58 M.J. 117 (2003). After setting aside the finding of guilty of Specification 2 of the Charge and the sentence, the Court remanded the record with direction that this Court could either dismiss Specification 2 of the Charge and reassess the sentence, or we could order a rehearing. | Docket No. 1116 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/24/2003 | 6/24/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BRIDGES - 61 MJ 645 | On 6 March 2003, this Court affirmed the findings of guilty and returned the record to the Convening Authority for a rehearing on the sentence. United States v. Bridges, 58 M.J. 540 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2003). Appellant elected to be sentenced by military judge alone in accordance with an agreement with the Convening Authority for a limitation on the sentence. Although executed prior to the sentence rehearing and explained to Appellant at the rehearing by the military judge, all parties and the military judge referred to the document as a post-trial agreement. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, sixteen years and six months confinement, and reduction to E-1. Pursuant to the post-trial agreement, the Convening Authority suspended all confinement in excess of twelve years for a period of twelve months from the date of his action. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant for his confinement at a civilian facility, the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, and for pre-sentence hearing confinement at the NAS Pensacola Brig. | Docket No. 1147 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/8/2005 | 7/8/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SHAFRAN RECONSIDERATION EN BANC (84 M.J. 548) | On 6 October 2023, we issued an en banc opinion affirming the findings and sentence. Appellant timely filed a motion urging us to reconsider our opinion without the participation of Judges Tasikas and Parker, whom he asserted were disqualified. After careful consideration of the motion, Judge Tasikas decided to recuse himself not due to any actual conflict, but to avoid even the appearance of conflict based on the particular circumstances of the case. Judge Parker declined to recuse herself, finding no basis to do so. We then granted the motion for reconsideration as well as Appellant’s motion to raise an additional assignment of error (AOE) in light of United States v. Jeter, 84 M.J. 68 (C.A.A.F. 2023). Having reconsidered the case and the additional AOE without Judge Tasikas’s participation, we again affirm the findings and sentence.
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.
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 are affirmed. | Docket No. 1480 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/26/2024 | 2/26/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HARRIS (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of domestic violence, in violation of Article 128b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-2 and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.
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. 1496 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/29/2024 | 8/29/2024 | | 8/30/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BRADDOCK (UNPUBLISHED) | Per curiam:
A military judge sitting alone as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas, of four specifications of distribution of marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 112a and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for nine months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge, which the Convening Authority approved. There was a pretrial agreement, but it had no impact on the sentence.
Pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), Appellant personally asserts that his sentence to a bad conduct discharge is inappropriately severe. We disagree. Reviewing de novo and considering this particular accused and his offenses, see United States v.Olsen, 79 M.J. 682, 691 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2019), we conclude that Appellant’s sentence is appropriate and should be approved. See Article 66(c), UCMJ. | Docket No. 1468 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/20/2020 | 3/20/2020 | | 3/25/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HADLEY (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four months, reduction to E-1, and bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.
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. 1492 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/20/2024 | 3/20/2024 | | 3/20/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. DUCKER (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of domestic violence,
one specification of child endangerment, and one specification of knowingly and wrongfully possessing a firearm in and affecting commerce, in violation of Articles 128b, 119b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. 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. 1508 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/22/2025 | 7/22/2025 | | 7/23/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. ROSE (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of negligent dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-5 and a punitive letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.
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. 1489 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/19/2023 | 12/19/2023 | | 1/10/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V THOMAS (MERITS) | 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 three specifications of indecent conduct, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for five months. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, and suspended confinement in excess of 120 days in accordance with the pretrial agreement. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors. | Docket No. 1476 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/10/2021 | | | 12/13/2021 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | ORDER PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF COOPER V FAY | Petitioner is an accused at a general court-martial convened by Commander, Atlantic Area. He has filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, and requests a stay of further proceedings while this Court considers the matter. He seeks an order directed to the military judge, ordering him “to respect the orders of the Courts of the States of Washington and Idaho.”
Charges against Petitioner were preferred on 27 September 2016, charging him with false official statement in a specification alleging that he falsely signed an official record that was false in that CC was not his spouse; and with larceny of services in a specification alleging that he falsely pretended that CC was eligible for medical benefits. He asserts that the State of Washington, by order dated November 18, 2016, recognizes a marriage between him and CC from October 11, 2000. Petitioner’s grievance lies in the military judge’s order of 18 April 2017, denying Petitioner’s motion for a ruling that, as a matter of law, Petitioner and CC have been married continuously from October 11, 2000 to present without interruption. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 002-17 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/4/2017 | 6/4/2017 | | 10/7/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | ORDER - In re Tucker Petition 2019 WL 5280525 | Petitioner is in pretrial confinement and seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing his release from pretrial confinement, asserting that the Commanding Officers who ordered him into pretrial confinement, and persisted upon request for reconsideration, abused their discretion.
Facts
On 28 August 2019, charges were preferred against Petitioner stemming from an incident involving the death of a shipmate that occurred on 26 January 2019. Petitioner was, at the time of the incident, assigned to Coast Guard Cutter DOUGLAS MUNRO, which was on a port call in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. The charges include murder, manslaughter, assault, and maiming, as well as violation of an order, false official statement, and obstructing justice. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 003-19 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/18/2019 | 10/18/2019 | | 10/23/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | ORDER REESE V. U.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS 78 MJ 527 | Petitioner seeks a writ of error coram nobis premised on his counsel’s failure to file a timely petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). While this error, if true, is of a fundamental character, he fails to establish that relief from this court is appropriate.
Background
Petitioner was convicted in 2014 by a general court-martial of three specifications of false official statements; four specifications of wrongful use, possession, or distribution of marijuana; one specification of sexual abuse of a child; and one specification of conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Articles 107, 112a, 120b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence of confinement for five years, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge.
On our first review, we affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Reese, No. 1422, slip op. at 7 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2016) (unpub.) (Reese I). Reviewing our decision, however, the CAAF reversed our decision as to the findings of guilty to the specifications under Article 120b and Article 134 and the sentence. It dismissed those two specifications, affirmed the remainder, and remanded the case to us “to either reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findings or order a sentence rehearing.” United States v. Reese, 76 M.J. 297, 303 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (Reese II). On our second review, we concluded we were able to reassess the sentence and affirmed only so much as included confinement for three months, | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-18 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/4/2018 | 5/4/2018 | | 5/8/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | In re CLIFFT (84 M.J. 729) | Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis setting aside his 2016 conviction due to alleged interjection of extraneous prejudicial information into the panel members’ deliberations. We conclude he does not meet the stringent requirements for this extraordinary relief and deny his petition.
The alleged error here is considerably more benign than a juror concealing that he already knew facts about the case based on prior participation in a grand jury, Mayer, 235 U.S. at 57, or the foreman of a jury sharing with other jurors unfavorable information about the defendants that had not been introduced at trial, Mills, 221 F.2d at 1203. Yet, as discussed, neither of those was deemed fundamental for purposes of coram nobis. More so here. Despite the members’ alleged exposure to the putative victim’s emotional outburst, we can presume the members followed the military judge’s instruction to “consider only the evidence presented in open court” and to “impartially resolve the ultimate issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused in accordance with the law, the evidence admitted in open court and your own conscience.” R. at 1302; United States v. Taylor, 53 M.J. 195, 198 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner fails to meet the threshold requirement of showing that the alleged error is of the most fundamental character.
Decision
Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis is DENIED. | Misc. Docket No. 001-24 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/14/2024 | 8/14/2024 | | 8/15/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | ADER V RADM BROOKS ET AL (WRIT) ORDER | Petitioner was tried by general court-martial. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, he pled
guilty and was convicted of various offenses. On 29 August 2007 Petitioner was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for nine months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence and, in addition, ordered that eight hundred dollars ($800.00) per month of any automatic forfeiture of entitled military pay imposed by operation of law be waived for a period of eighteen months from the date of his action and be payable to Mrs. D. Ader, pursuant to the pretrial agreement. The Judge Advocate General referred the record to this Court for review under Article 66, UCMJ, on 4 February 2008. Briefs have not yet
been filed. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 003-08 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/21/2008 | 3/21/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |