| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V JAMES - 64 MJ 514 | 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 one specification of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of wrongfully using cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and one specification of wrongfully using marijuana, a Schedule II controlled substance, both in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $600 pay per month for three months, and confinement for ninety days. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended, until 18 April 2006, all confinement in excess of sixty-two days in response to Appellant’s clemency request. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. | Docket No. 1246 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/25/2006 | 9/25/2006 | | 10/25/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ISAAC - 59 MJ 537.PDF | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of simple assault in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as a lesser included offense of a charge and specification of indecent assault under Article 134, UCMJ, and to three specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The simple assault involved Appellant’s acts toward a female fireman (E-3) who was asleep in a female berthing area aboard USCGC MUNRO (WHEC 724) in the early morning hours during a port call in Kodiak, Alaska. The Article 133, UCMJ, violations involved Appellant “forcefully” (sic) picking up and spinning a female petty officer (E-4), “forcefully” (sic) picking up and carrying a female seaman apprentice (E-2) approximately thirty feet, and “forcefully” (sic) picking up and carrying a female petty officer (E-5) on his shoulder. The latter three acts occurred during port calls in Mazatlan, Mexico and San Diego, California. At the time of each of the offenses, Appellant was assigned as operations officer, third-highest ranking officer, on board USCGC MUNRO, a high endurance cutter with a mixed-gender crew of approximately 160. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty, and sentenced Appellant to a reprimand and dismissal from the service. The Government, as required by the pretrial agreement, withdrew a number of other charges and did not attempt to prove the charge of indecent assault to which Appellant pled not guilty. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement required disapproval of fines or forfeitures of over $5,000 and all confinement, but allowed approval of a dismissal, lesser forms of restraint, and other lawful punishments. | Docket No. 1179 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/19/2003 | 8/19/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V INDRI - 51 MJ 508 | UNITED STATES V INDRI - 51 MJ 508 - CGCCA Opinion | Docket No. 1099 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/10/1999 | 8/10/1999 | | 8/29/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HYNES - 49 MJ 506 | UNITED STATES V HYNES | Docket No. 1055 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/29/1998 | 8/29/1998 | | 8/29/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 58 MJ 744 | A panel of this Court first decided this case on 27 June 2001, and affirmed findings of guilty and twenty-eight months confinement. However, after considering, among other things, Appellant’s subsequent conviction and punishment by state authorities for the same acts underlying the court-martial offenses, it disapproved that portion of the sentence providing for a bad conduct discharge and reduction to paygrade E-1. Upon request by the Government, the Court sitting as a whole reconsidered and reaffirmed that decision, but limited its decision to legal issues relating to the Court’s consideration of the state proceeding. Finding no error contributing to the sentence action, the Court expressly refrained from reviewing the court-martial sentence again, noting that at least one of our higher court’s judges, former Chief Judge Everett, believed it was not in our power to reconsider en banc a panel’s determination of sentence appropriateness. Thereafter, pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) ordered the case sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The JAG certified four issues for review.4 On 30 August 2002, that Court remanded the record to us for clarification in order to determine whether this Court abused our discretion by seeking to lessen the effect of the punishment from the state court proceedings, rather than properly exercising our Article 66, UCMJ, authority by taking into account the conviction and punishment by state authorities in considering whether the military sentence was appropriate. Our superior court specifically directed us to provide that clarification in the form of a de novo review of sentence appropriateness under Article 66(c), UCMJ. We were further instructed to then return the record directly to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces in order to allow them to complete their review under Article 67, UCMJ. United States v. Hutchison, 57 M.J. 231, 234 (C.A.A.F. 2002). | Docket No. 1090 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/3/2003 | 6/3/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 56 MJ 684: (on reconsid) | UNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 56 MJ 684
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Decision | Docket No. 1090 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/14/2001 | 12/14/2001 | | 8/31/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 55 MJ 574 | UNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 55 MJ 574 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals Decision | Docket No. 1090 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/27/2001 | 6/27/2001 | | 8/31/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUPP - UNPUBLISHED | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification each of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A by receiving child pornography, and violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A by possessing child pornography, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for thirty-two months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and suspended the reduction to E-1 until the date of release from confinement. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. Appellant was credited with 75 days of credit for pretrial confinement. | Docket No. 1284 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/26/2009 | 1/26/2009 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUNTER 64 MJ 571 | 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 the following offenses: three specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of willful dereliction of duty by making unauthorized charges to a Government credit card and by failing to make payments on that card, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of larceny of a motorcycle, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; and one specification of dishonorable failure to pay a debt, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved only so much of the sentence as includes a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-2, and confinement for eight months, but suspended confinement in excess of 180 days for the period of twelve months from the date of the Convening Authority’s action. Although the pretrial agreement provided that the execution of all confinement in excess of 120 days would be suspended for a period of twelve months from the date of the Convening Authority’s action, the Convening Authority partially withdrew the sentence limitation due to Appellant’s misconduct. Appellant waived a R.C.M. 1109 hearing to determine whether the alleged misconduct was committed, in exchange for the Convening Authority’s agreement not to impose more than sixty days of additional confinement and not to take further action upon the suspected misconduct. Automatic forfeitures were deferred and waived. | Docket No. 1232 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/23/2007 | 1/23/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUMPHREYS - PER CURIAM | UNITED STATES V HUMPHREYS - PER CURIAM
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | Docket No. 1162 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/17/2002 | 6/17/2002 | | 9/15/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUGHES - 62 MJ 621 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A by knowingly possessing child pornography that had been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, a reduction to the rate of E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for eight months. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence. | Docket No. 1205 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/30/2005 | 12/30/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HUGHES - 60 MJ 509 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial
agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to 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. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas,
entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for 170 days
and dismissal from the Coast Guard. Appellant also entered pleas of not guilty to two
specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ, and one specification of
unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The latter charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice. The military judge also recommended that the Convening Authority disapprove the dismissal as a matter of clemency. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of forty-five days until 3 July 2004 as required by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1196 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/21/2004 | 5/21/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| 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 HUDSON - 58 MJ 830 | UNITED STATES V HUDSON - 58 MJ 830
Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of one specification of wrongful possession of Oxycondone Hydrochloride (OxyContin), a schedule II controlled substance, and one specification of wrongful use of OxyContin, in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of unauthorized absence for two days, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; one specification of failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully possessing four bottles of liquor in his barracks room, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful appropriation of military property of a value in excess of $100, in violation of Article 121,UCMJ; and one specification of breaking restriction when he commenced his unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1159 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/30/2003 | 6/30/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| 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 |