| 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 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| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BRADDOCK (UNPUBLISHED) | Per curiam: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 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 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 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 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 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 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 |
| 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 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 | 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 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 | 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 | 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 |