• TJAG Home Page
  • CGCCA Home Page
  • Oral Argument Schedule
  • Appellate Briefs
  • Court Opinions
  • Court Orders
  • CGCCA Rules of Appellate Procedure with JRAP (Mar 2025)
CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 55 MJ 574UNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 55 MJ 574 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1090Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/27/20016/27/20018/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HUTCHISON - 58 MJ 744A 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. 1090Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/3/20036/3/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V STIREWALT - 58 MJ 552This represents the second occasion for this Court to review this case pursuant to Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the third time it has been before us. Because of the case’s unusual procedural history, a brief recitation of its background is provided. On 17 June 1997, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members: four specifications of maltreatment by sexual harassment, one specification of rape, one specification of forcible sodomy, three specifications of assault consummated by a battery, four specifications of adultery, and four specifications of indecent assault, in violation of Articles 93, 120, 125, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ, respectively. Prior to sentencing, the original military judge dismissed two specifications of maltreatment, two specifications of assault consummated by a battery, and one specification of adultery as multiplicious. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to paygrade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for ten years, and a dishonorable discharge. On 29 October 1997, the convening authority approved the findings and sentence and ordered it executed with the exception of the dishonorable discharge. For a detailed recitation of the facts underlying the aforementioned charges, see United States v. Stirewalt, 53 M.J. 582 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2000).Docket No. 1089Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/11/20033/11/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V STIREWALT - 53 MJ 582UNITED STATES V STIREWALT - 53 MJ 582 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1089Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/16/20005/16/20008/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MATTHEWS - 55 MJ 600UNITED STATES V MATTHEWS - 55 MJ 600 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1088Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/29/20016/29/20018/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SAENZ - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V SAENZ - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1087Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/30/19979/30/19978/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MCBRIDE - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V MCBRIDE - UNPUBLISHED - CGCCA OpinionDocket No. 1086Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/13/19988/13/19988/29/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ROMERO - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V ROMERO - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1085Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 9/22/19979/22/19978/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V WILLIAMS - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V WILLIAMS - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1084Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/26/19979/26/19978/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BENEDICT - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BENEDICT - UNPUBLISHED - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal DecisionDocket No. 1083Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/21/20004/21/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BENEDICT - 59 MJ 563UNITED STATES V BENEDICT - 59 MJ 563 Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1083Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/16/20028/16/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HEGEL - 52 MJ 778UNITED STATES V HEGEL - 52 MJ 778 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal DecisionDocket No. 1082Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/16/20003/16/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SUTPHIN - 49 MJ 534UNITED STATES V SUTPHIN - 49 MJ 534Docket No. 1081Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/8/199812/8/19988/29/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V COLLOVA - 47 MJ 829UNITED STATES V COLLOVA - 47 MJ 829 - CGCCA OpinionDocket No. 1080Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/6/19982/6/19988/29/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V TUALLA - 49 MJ 554UNITED STATES V TUALLA - 49 MJ 554Docket No. 1079Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/27/19991/27/19998/29/2017
Page 31 of 34

Oral Arguments

Pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Standard carrying out Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice [10 U.S.C. s. 940a] (revised, January 2025), an audio recording of an oral argument will typically be made publicly accessible. Audio recordings for oral arguments after the effective date of this new rule (January 2025) are below. As part of this requirement, a military service provides a mechanism by which a written transcript may be made available upon request. Contact HQS-DG-LST-CG-LMJ@uscg.mil with the reason for the request. 

 

Parties Docket Audio File Date
U.S. v. Ray 1498 MP3 2025/05/13
U.S. v. Kelley 1495 MP3 2025/03/26