| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | ORDER IN RE VARGAS PETITION (PER CURIAM) | Petitioner, an accused at a special court-martial convened by the Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Base, Kodiak, Alaska, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the military judge to dismiss the charges based on improper referral, and requests a stay of further proceedings while this Court considers the matter. We conclude that Petitioner has failed to show either that she has “no other adequate means to attain the relief [s]he desires” or that her “right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 15th day of October, 2021,
ORDERED:
That the request for a stay of proceedings is denied; that the Petition for Extraordinary Relief is denied, without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise the issues therein in the course of normal review under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-21 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/15/2021 | 10/15/2021 | | 10/18/2021 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | IN RE A.H. PETITION - ORDER (79 M.J. 672) | Petitioner, an alleged crime victim under Article 6b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), seeks a writ of mandamus reversing a military judge’s order in the pending case of United States v. AMT3 Daniel Rankin without allowing Petitioner the right to move to quash or modify said subpoena; and a stay pending our decision on granting a writ.1 On 26 August 2019, we granted a stay for two days, and ordered Petitioner to provide certain documents from the trial proceedings to date; to address the question of whether a victim has a right to a second opportunity to raise objections that could have been raised earlier in a case where the victim has already submitted an objection; and to provide to this Court what Petitioner would submit to the military judge if the petition is granted. Petitioner filed a response to our order on 27 August 2019. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 002-19 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/28/2019 | 8/28/2019 | | 10/7/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | ORDER IN RE C. P-B PETITION 78 M.J. 824.PDF | Petitioner, an alleged crime victim under Article 6b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, seeks extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus requiring the military judge in the case of United States v. EM1 Michael A. Badar to exclude certain evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). We conclude that relief is not warranted.
Background
The accused, EM1 Badar, is pending a general-court martial for, among other charges, sexually assaulting Petitioner and, in a separate incident, assaulting Ms. H.R. Trial defense counsel raised a motion in limine seeking a ruling on the admissibility of evidence under M.R.E. 412 of Petitioner’s alleged romantic and sexual relationship with Mr. S.T.
At a motions session, Mr. S.T. testified substantially as follows:
- Mr. S.T. met the accused and Petitioner, who were married and living together at the time, through a mutual social group. Mr. S.T. and Petitioner developed a close personal relationship that included working out together, eating lunch together, and frequent communication.
- Petitioner confided in Mr. S.T. that she was experiencing marital tensions with the accused and expressed fear of where she would live if the marriage ended. Mr. S.T. offered that she could use a spare bedroom in his home if it became necessary.
- Within their social group, rumors developed that Mr. S.T. and Petitioner had a sexual relationship. Although Mr. S.T. denied such rumors were true at that time, the rumors caused tensions within the social group and further tensions within Petitioner’s and the accused’s marriage, including the accused alleging that Petitioner was emotionally cheating on him. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-19 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/18/2019 | 3/18/2019 | | 8/25/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | MK1 SERGENT V RDML ROCHON ORDER | Petitioner, who has been charged with offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that are scheduled to be investigated under Article 32, UCMJ, has filed a petition for extraordinary relief styled as a request for relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. He seeks an emergency order staying the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation until this Court rules on the substantive issues raised in his petition. He seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Respondent to detail a reporter to the investigation at no cost to the Petitioner and to provide the Petitioner with a copy of the audiotapes or a transcript; or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition prohibiting Respondent from interfering with the defense preparation of his case by requiring Respondent to permit the defense to record the investigation without any requirement to provide a written transcript to the Investigating Officer or the Government. Petitioner also moves this Court to have appellate defense counsel appointed to represent him. It is, by the Court, this 20th day of December 2006, | MISC. DOCKET N0. 001-07 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/20/2006 | 12/20/2006 | | 10/25/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | GARCIA V RADM CROWLEY (WRIT) ORDER | Petitioner, who has been charged with offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that are scheduled to be investigated under Article 32, UCMJ, has filed a petition for extraordinary relief styled as a request for relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition.
He seeks an emergency order staying the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation pending action by this Court on the petition. He seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Respondent to detail a reporter to the investigation at no cost to the Petitioner and to provide Petitioner with a copy of the audiotapes or a transcript; or, in the
alternative, a writ of prohibition prohibiting Respondent from preventing the defense from preparing a privileged transcript of the proceeding. Petitioner also requests this Court to appoint appellate defense counsel. It is, by the Court, this 16th day of April, 2008, | MISC. DOCKET N0. 004-08 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/16/2008 | 4/16/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| 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 | MORTON V CAPT JUDGE ORDER | Petitioner, who is undergoing trial by court-martial, has filed a petition for extraordinary relief styled as a request for relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition. He seeks a stay of proceedings pending further action by this Court. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to grant funding for a defense investigator, compel depositions for certain witnesses, suppress the testimony of certain other witnesses, and compel the production of a complainant’s diary, or, in the alternative, to prohibit the trial from going forward until the requested relief has been granted. Petitioner also requests the appointment of appellate defense counsel to assist his civilian counsel. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Amend Brief in Support of Petition and Motion to Amend Petition on 7 September 2007. It is, by the Court, this 18th day of September, 2007, | MISC. DOCKET N0. 003-07 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/18/2007 | 9/18/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUBBERT - 61 MJ 705 | Pursuant to Article 66(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, the record of trial in this case was forwarded to this Court for review on 23 June 2005 and no assignments of errors or briefs have been filed. However, Appellant’s counsel has moved for this Court to abate the proceedings in this case ab initio based on the death of Appellant by his own hand, as reflected in Appendix A, which counsel has moved to attach. Appendix A is an email to Counsel for Appellant forwarding a Personnel Casualty Report message, date-time group 151844Z AUG 05 from COMCOGARD SECTOR SAULT STE MARIE MI, indicating that Appellant, while on active duty appellate leave, was pronounced dead on 15 August 2005, as a result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. On consideration of counsel’s Motion for Abatement of Proceedings and Motion to Attach Document, filed under the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, with no opposition from the Government, it is, by the Court, this 25th day of August, 2005, | DOCKET NO. 1240 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/25/2005 | 8/25/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MARTIN - UNPUBLISHED 2ND OPINION | Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, Appellant was convicted by general court-martial, military judge alone, of one specification each of violating 18 U.S.C. 2252A by receiving and possessing child pornography, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of violating a lawful general order by using a government computer to view, download and store sexually explicit materials, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced him to confinement for thirty-two months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. On 6 December 2006, this Court set aside the Convening Authority’s action and returned the record to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the Convening Authority for a new action. United States v. Martin, No. 1260 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. Dec. 6, 2006). An Article 39(a) session was held on 19 December 2006 at which an inquiry was conducted concerning the provisions of a post-trial agreement between Appellant and the Convening Authority. Pursuant to the post-trial agreement, the Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended confinement in excess of seventeen months and twenty-four days until either (1) the Convening Authority determines Appellant has successfully completed a sex offender treatment program or (2) two years from the date of the Convening Authority’s action, whichever occurs later. | Docket No. 1260 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/26/2008 | 8/26/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | STIREWALT V PLUTA - 54 MJ 925 | STIREWALT V PLUTA - 54 MJ 925 - writ of mandamus - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Decision | 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 | SULLIVAN V SCHULTZ ORDER WDISSENT | SULLIVAN V SCHULTZ ORDER WDISSENT
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | MISC. DOCKET NO. 001-17 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/29/2016 | 11/29/2016 | | 9/1/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V OSUNA - 58 MJ 879 | The record in this case was first acted upon by this Court on 28 November 2001 in a decision which affirmed the findings of guilty, and returned the record for a new convening authority’s action on the sentence. That sentence action has been completed by the convening authority, and has resulted in his reducing the earlier approved dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge, and approval again of the remaining adjudged sentence of confinement for three months and reduction to paygrade E-1. Before this Court, Appellant has reasserted an error assigned by him earlier, that the evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for two specifications alleging maltreatment of a Seaman Apprentice (SA) under his authority as an Honor Guard trainee.2 This assignment was rejected by two of the three judges on this panel during our first review of the case, with a determination that the findings of guilty were both legally and factually sufficient. As the third member of the panel, I dissented from this view, finding the two specifications of maltreatment not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, Appellant asks us to revisit the majority’s decision in this regard. In so doing, he notes that the question of what extent a service court is bound by its previous factual findings is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in the case of United States v. Riley, 57 M.J. 157 (C.A.A.F. 2002). | Docket No. 1122 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/9/2003 | 4/9/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LIND - UNPUBLISHED | This case was previously decided by this Court on 31 January 2007. The Court found, in part, that although Appellant failed to show that he was unrepresented by his trial defense counsel during any portion of the post-trial phase of the case, his defense counsel was deficient
in failing to contact Appellant regarding clemency. As a result, the Court granted relief. | Docket No. 1228 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/7/2007 | 9/7/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES v REIMONENQ (25 WL 1702021) | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellee is charged with attempted murder, two specifications of carrying a concealed weapon, and one specification of dereliction of duty. Appellee filed a motion to suppress statements he made to shipmates and separately to Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) agents. The military judge granted in part and denied in part the suppression motion. The Government gave timely notice and filed this appeal.
The Government asserts:
I. The military judge abused his discretion when he found Appellee did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Article 31(b) rights; and
II. The military judge misapplied the law when he found the Appellee in custody, thereby triggering the Appellee’s Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, if the Appellee was in custody, the military judge abused his discretion when determining the Appellee did not
knowingly and intelligently waive his Fifth Amendment rights. | Docket No. 1509 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/18/2025 | 6/18/2025 | | 6/23/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RUFF 2018 W.L. 4268537 | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellee was charged with possession of child pornography, among other things. The alleged child pornography was found on Appellee’s mobile phone by a police officer who had arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Appellee filed a motion to suppress the images found on his phone. On 28 November 2017, the military judge granted the suppression motion.
The Government gave notice of appeal of the ruling on 29 November 2017, and filed the record of trial with this Court on 21 December 2017. The Government filed its appeal brief on 10 January 2018. Appellee filed his brief on 30 January 2018.
The Government argues that the military judge erred in granting Appellee’s motion to suppress. We disagree and affirm the military judge’s ruling. | Docket No. 001-62-18 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/15/2018 | 2/15/2018 | | 2/21/2018 |