| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MCAULEY - 59 MJ 697 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: one specification of conspiracy to steal and wrongfully dispose of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful disposition of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, and one specification of sale of military property of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for fifteen months, reduction to E-1, and a $200 fine. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, but suspended all confinement in excess of eight months, pursuant to the sentence terms of the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned two errors. | Docket No. 1177 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/9/2004 | 1/9/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V KESSLER - PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of physically controlling a passenger car while impaired by ecstasy, a schedule one controlled substance, in violation of Article 111, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and two specifications of wrongful use of ecstasy, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. She was also convicted of wrongfully distributing some amount of ecstasy, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, after pleading not guilty to that offense. | Docket No. 1190 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/6/2004 | 1/6/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ONTIVEROS - 59 MJ 639 | Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was found guilty of one specification of conspiracy to steal and wrongfully dispose of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful disposition of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for six months, and reduction to E-3. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, which was within the sentence limits of the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1178 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/25/2003 | 11/25/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V RIGGS - 59 MJ 614 | 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: one specification of unauthorized absence for one day terminated by apprehension in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful use of marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and six specifications of larceny of a checkbook, a camera valued at $99, money in the amount of $600, $274, and two larcenies of $250, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1186 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/7/2003 | 11/7/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V WARNER - 59 MJ 590 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one specification of use of “MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy), a Schedule I controlled substances [sic] and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance” in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge. Appellant pled not guilty to one specification of distribution of “MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy), Schedule I controlled substances and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance.” The Government presented no evidence of that offense, and the military judge dismissed that specification prior to adjournment. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, as allowed by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1187 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/7/2003 | 10/7/2003 | | 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 SUKSDORF - 59 MJ 544 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of attempted introduction of marijuana onto a military installation in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, two specifications of possession of marijuana, one specification of use of cocaine and marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and one specification of introducing marijuana onto a military installation in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and five specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for 280 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad
conduct discharge. Appellant pled not guilty to one specification of distribution of marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and to a charge and specification of larceny of six checks. The military judge entered findings of not guilty to those specifications after the Government did not present any evidence of those offenses. The pre-trial agreement allowed the Convening Authority to approve the sentence as adjudged, but required suspension of confinement in excess of 150 days.3 Appellant also received 41 days of Allen credit for pre-trial confinement. United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). | Docket No. 1182 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/3/2003 | 9/3/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MAHONEY - 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 found guilty of the following offenses: three specifications of unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ.
Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but suspended execution of the confinement in excess of 60 days for a period of six months, in accordance with the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with 65 days of confinement against the sentence of confinement. 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. 1183 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/27/2003 | 8/27/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| 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 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 DATZ - 59 MJ 510 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of striking a Petty Officer and one specification of treating a Petty Officer with contempt in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of dereliction of duty and one specification of violating a lawful general regulation in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of rape in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and one specification of unlawful entry in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-3 and confinement for three months. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard referred the record to this Court pursuant to Article 69(d), UCMJ. | Docket No. 001-69-01 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/6/2003 | 8/6/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V Drews - Per Curiam | 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 found guilty of the following offenses: one specification of violating a lawful general order, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of sodomy with a child, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful solicitation to commit an indecent act, two specifications of an indecent act upon a child, and two specifications of indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for seven years, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, suspended execution of the confinement in excess of fifty-five months for a period of fifty-five months from the date the sentence was adjudged. 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. The Government, having examined the record, submits that the findings and sentence are correct in fact and law. | Docket No. 1181 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/16/2003 | 7/16/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| 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 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 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 |