| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V GOODELL (II) OPINION ( 79 M.J. 825 ) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault and one specification of solicitation to commit an offense, in violation of Articles 81 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for two years and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but, pursuant to a pretrial agreement, suspended all confinement in excess of eleven months.
Appellant raises six assignments of error: (1) whether the Convening Authority properly ordered a rehearing without setting aside the findings already made on the charges against Appellant; (2) whether the Convening Authority properly ordered a rehearing where no summarized record was prepared and authenticated by the detailed military judge; (3) whether the Convening Authority properly ordered a rehearing where the adjudged sentence included a dishonorable discharge or confinement for more than six months; (4) whether Appellant’s guilty plea was voluntary where it was obtained through a promise to relax an order prohibiting communication with his son; (5) whether the terms in the pretrial agreement regulating Appellant’s future parental visitation with his son are void; and (6) whether this Court may affirm a sentence where a prior conviction was admitted as evidence in sentencing but was later set aside. | Docket No. 1466 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/13/2020 | 3/13/2020 | | 3/25/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. OLSEN 79 M.J. 682 | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of attempting to violate a lawful general order and three specifications of violating a lawful general order, in violation of Articles 80 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for ninety days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Although there was a pretrial agreement, it did not affect the sentence and the Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
Before us, Appellant asserts that: (1) Charge I (attempted violation of a general order) and Charge II (violation of a general order) are multiplicious; (2) all charges and specifications constitute an unreasonable multiplication of charges; (3) the military judge erred by admitting
improper sentencing evidence; and (4) the sentence is inappropriately severe. We address each
but we find no prejudicial error and affirm. | Docket No. 1462 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/25/2019 | 9/25/2019 | | 9/25/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V WOODS (2023 WL 7555387) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of three specifications of wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for nine months and dismissal. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant asserts that: (1) the court-martial lacked jurisdiction over him; and (2) he was denied his right to speedy post-trial processing. We conclude the court-martial had personal jurisdiction, but we grant partial relief for unreasonable post-trial delay.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for eight months and a dismissal is approved. We determine that the findings and sentence, as modified, 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 modified, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1481 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/2023 | 11/15/2023 | | 11/15/2023 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V JAMES D (2023 WL 7557349) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of three specifications of possession of child pornography and one specification of distribution of child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for six years, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant asserts that: (1) he suffered illegal pretrial punishment; (2) his counsel were ineffective for failing to address or request credit for pretrial confinement conditions; and (3) he is entitled to relief for unreasonable post-trial delay. We conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm.
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. 1485 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/2023 | 11/15/2023 | | 11/15/2023 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V EUBANKS (2024 WL 5058698) | 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 indecent exposure and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, in violation of Articles 120c and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of $8,000 and a reprimand. 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. 1500 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/11/2024 | 12/11/2024 | | 12/11/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ALBERT (MERITS) | 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 drunk and disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to no punishment. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted his 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. 1499 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/2/2024 | 8/2/2024 | | 8/2/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V TUCKER 82 M.J. 553 | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant of violating a lawful general order, making a false official statement, and committing an unenumerated, general disorder involving death of another in violation of Articles 92, 107, and 134, UCMJ. Also consistent with his pleas, the military judge found Appellant not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide under Articles 119 and 134, UCMJ. The military judge, however, found Appellant guilty of involuntary manslaughter’s lesser-included offense of assault consummated by a battery under Article 128, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, a bad-conduct discharge, and confinement for fourteen months. Judgment was entered accordingly. | Docket No. 1472 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/7/2022 | 4/7/2022 | | 4/8/2022 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SHERMOT 77 MJ 742 | A military judge sitting alone as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for one year and dismissal, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant now asserts that: (1) the specification’s use of the disjunctive—that Appellant knew or reasonably should have known the complaining witness was incapable of consenting—rendered the verdict ambiguous and deprived Appellant of constitutional due process; and (2) the evidence is factually insufficient to sustain his conviction.
We disagree and affirm. | Docket No. 1447 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/11/2018 | 4/11/2018 | | 4/16/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SCHWARTZ OPINION (UNPUBLISHED) | A general court-martial, military judge alone, convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of sexual abuse of a child and three specifications of assault consummated by a battery upon a child under 16 years, in violation of Articles 120b and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant on 17 February 2017 to confinement for four years, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but pursuant to a pretrial agreement, suspended all confinement in excess of thirty months.
Without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant submits this case to us on its merits without assigning error. | Docket No. 1455 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/22/2018 | 5/22/2018 | | 6/6/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. GRIJALVA (2024 WL 4559274) | A general court-martial with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six offenses: making a false official statement; obstructing justice; wrongfully broadcasting an intimate visual image; accessing a computer application without authority and with intent to defraud; using without authority a means of identification of another person; and creating a profile on a computer application with intent to defraud—in violation of Articles 107, 131b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for three months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge, and judgment was entered accordingly.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for one month, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge is approved. We determine that the sentence, as reassessed, is correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the sentence, as reassessed, is affirmed. | Docket No. 1482 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/24/2024 | 10/24/2024 | | 10/24/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. RAY (-- MJ ---) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violating a general order in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-2, 60 days of hard labor, and 60 days of restriction. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises two assignments of error:
I. The specification of which Appellant was convicted fails to state an offense because it fails to allege specific conduct prohibited by the order; and
II. The military judge abused his discretion by improperly allowing an unsworn statement to be presented by the accuser during sentencing.
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. 1498 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/9/2025 | 7/9/2025 | | 7/14/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. ROGERS 78 M.J. 813 | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of obstructing justice and one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. § 499 by willfully allowing another person to have his military identification card, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).1 The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-1 and a bad-conduct discharge, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant raises the following assignments of error: (1) the identification card specification fails to state an offense under clause 3 of Article 134; (2) the identification card specification fails to state an offense under clause 2 of Article 134; (3) Appellant lacked notice that letting another person temporarily hold his military identification card was criminal conduct; (4) the clause 3 of Article 134 offense alleged in the identification card specification is preempted by the enumerated Article 134 offense of wrongful loan or disposition of a military identification card; (5) evidence that Appellant violated 18 U.S.C. § 499 was legally and factually insufficient; (6) the military judge erred in failing to provide the members with instructions on all the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 499; (7) evidence that Appellant obstructed justice is legally and factually insufficient; (8) the military judge erred in ruling that the two specifications for obstruction of justice were not multiplicious; and (9) the military judge erred in ruling that the two specifications for obstruction of justice were not an unreasonable multiplication of charges. We heard oral argument on the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the obstruction of justice convictions. | Docket No. 1391 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/21/2019 | 2/21/2019 | | 2/22/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V KELLEY (2025 WL 1198116) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of possessing child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for twelve months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
We heard oral argument on AOEs I and V. Lumping the issues together, we first consider AOEs related to whether Appellant was acquitted (I, II, and part of VI), then those related to whether he was convicted of an offense for which he was not charged (III, IV, V, and the other part of VI), and finally sufficiency of the evidence (VII). We conclude there was no error and affirm.
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. 1495 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/25/2025 | 4/25/2025 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. WEISER (80 M.J. 635) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual assault, one specification of indecent recording, two specifications of broadcasting an indecent recording, and four specifications of indecent conduct, in violation of Articles 120, Article 120c, and Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (2016). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for four years, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge, which the Convening Authority approved.
On appeal, Appellant asserts that:
(1) He was deprived of due process because he was charged with violating Article 120, UCMJ, under a bodily harm theory, but prosecuted and convicted under the theory that the putative victim was incapable of consenting due to alcohol impairment;
(2) Appellant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his trial defense counsel failed to obtain expert assistance;
(3) The military judge abused her discretion by excluding evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412, Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2016 ed.);
(4) Appellant’s conviction under Article 120, UCMJ, is factually and legally insufficient; and
(5) The marital relationship between the original staff judge advocate and the chief of military justice created an appearance of unlawful command influence. | Docket No. 1469 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/21/2020 | 9/21/2020 | | 9/21/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V CLIFFT 77 MJ 712 | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of false official statement in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and two specifications of assault and battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for four years, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
Appellant now asserts the following:
1. The record is incomplete and: (a) the trial counsel erred by attempting to complete an otherwise incomplete record; (b) the staff judge advocate failed to adequately address allegations in clemency matters of an incomplete record; and (c) because the record was incomplete, the convening authority erred by approving a sentence greater than that available at a special court-martial.
2. The military judge erred in his instructions regarding consent and trial defense counsel were ineffective for failing to ask for a correct instruction.
3. The military judge erred by permitting what amounted to a substantial variance between the charged offense and the verdict.1
4. The military judge erred by allowing “profiling evidence,” including uncharged misconduct.
5. The evidence of sexual assault is legally and factually insufficient.
6. The military judge erred by denying in-camera review of mental health records.
7. The military judge erred by denying a challenge for cause of one of the members. | Docket No. 1446 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/12/2018 | 3/12/2018 | | 3/19/2018 |