| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 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 | 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 |
| 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 | 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 | 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 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 | 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 | 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 |