| 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. 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 REIMONENQ (25 WL 1702021) | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellee is charged with attempted murder, two specifications of carrying a concealed weapon, and one specification of dereliction of duty. Appellee filed a motion to suppress statements he made to shipmates and separately to Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) agents. The military judge granted in part and denied in part the suppression motion. The Government gave timely notice and filed this appeal.
The Government asserts:
I. The military judge abused his discretion when he found Appellee did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Article 31(b) rights; and
II. The military judge misapplied the law when he found the Appellee in custody, thereby triggering the Appellee’s Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, if the Appellee was in custody, the military judge abused his discretion when determining the Appellee did not
knowingly and intelligently waive his Fifth Amendment rights. | Docket No. 1509 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/18/2025 | 6/18/2025 | | 6/23/2025 |
| 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 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 TAYLOR (2024 WL 4656849) | A special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of failure to obey a lawful general regulation, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-5 and restriction for 30 days. The convening authority disapproved the restriction,1 leaving only the reduction to E-5. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, Appellant has assigned as error that Appellant’s due process right to timely appellate review was violated when the government delayed providing notice of his right to appeal and ultimately took more than a year to transmit his record of trial to this court. The delay is largely attributable to the loss of the record of trial.
Post-Trial Delay: Due Process
Appellant asserts his right to due process was violated because 460 days elapsed from the date he had the right of direct appeal until his record of trial was transmitted to this Court, including 373 days that are attributable to the Government. We disagree. | Docket No. 1503 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/4/2024 | 11/4/2024 | | 11/5/2024 |
| 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 NENNI (2024 WL 4454934) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $1,278 per month for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises two assignments of error: (1) His due process right to timely appellate review was violated; and (2) The convening authorities violated his equal protection right when they solicited, received, and presumptively considered panel members’ race and gender in selecting who would serve on appellant’s court-martial.
We conclude there is 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. 1494 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/10/2024 | 10/10/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| 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 | In re CLIFFT (84 M.J. 729) | Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis setting aside his 2016 conviction due to alleged interjection of extraneous prejudicial information into the panel members’ deliberations. We conclude he does not meet the stringent requirements for this extraordinary relief and deny his petition.
The alleged error here is considerably more benign than a juror concealing that he already knew facts about the case based on prior participation in a grand jury, Mayer, 235 U.S. at 57, or the foreman of a jury sharing with other jurors unfavorable information about the defendants that had not been introduced at trial, Mills, 221 F.2d at 1203. Yet, as discussed, neither of those was deemed fundamental for purposes of coram nobis. More so here. Despite the members’ alleged exposure to the putative victim’s emotional outburst, we can presume the members followed the military judge’s instruction to “consider only the evidence presented in open court” and to “impartially resolve the ultimate issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused in accordance with the law, the evidence admitted in open court and your own conscience.” R. at 1302; United States v. Taylor, 53 M.J. 195, 198 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner fails to meet the threshold requirement of showing that the alleged error is of the most fundamental character.
Decision
Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis is DENIED. | Misc. Docket No. 001-24 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/14/2024 | 8/14/2024 | | 8/15/2024 |
| 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 BROWN (2ND) OPINION (UNPUBLISHED) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of disrespect toward a petty officer and one specification of violation of a lawful general order prohibiting sexual harassment, in violation of Articles 91 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-4, a reprimand, and restriction for thirty days. The convening authority approved the sentence. Judgment was entered accordingly. Approving Appellant’s timely application, the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Coast Guard, sent the case to this Court pursuant to Article 69(d), UCMJ.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for a reprimand and restriction for thirty days is approved. The current reprimand, which references the sexual harassment conviction, is set aside. A revised reprimand shall be substituted. We determine that the remaining findings and the newly reassessed sentence are correct in law and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the remaining findings of guilty and the sentence, as reassessed, are affirmed. | Docket No. 001-69-21 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/19/2024 | 7/19/2024 | | 7/22/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (UNPUBLISHED) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of indecent recording, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for three months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority (CA) disapproved one month of confinement. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises four assignments of error (AOEs):
I. The Government’s failure to execute the CA’s action reducing Appellant’s period of confinement violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
II. The trial counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct by failing to communicate the convening authority’s action to the confinement facility.
III. The Deputy Judge Advocate General (DJAG) of the Coast Guard engaged in unlawful command influence by seeking to have the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) close its investigation into a formal Inspector General (IG) complaint about Appellant’s illegal post-trial confinement, obstructing both Appellant and this Court from uncovering direct evidence about the trial counsel’s misconduct, which has negatively affected the fair handling of this case.
IV. This Court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to compel production of direct statements and evidence relating to his illegal confinement, hindering his ability to identify and fully support claims of error before this Court.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for two months and a bad-conduct discharge is approved. Appellant shall be paid 26 days of pay and allowances at the E-4 rate. 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. 1487 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/11/2024 | 7/11/2024 | | 7/11/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V TRUITT (84 M.J. 721) | A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial, convicted Appellant of four specifications of violating a lawful general order in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). One specification was for violating ALCOAST Commandant’s Notice (ACN) 003/20, dated 7 January 2020, by sexually harassing SN SA. The remaining three specifications were for violating the Coast Guard Standards of Ethical Conduct Manual, COMDTINST M5370.8B, para. 7 (1 March 2002), by directing her subordinates to use official time for acts outside their official duties and to use government property for other than authorized purposes. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-5 and a letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant now raises four assignments of error (AOEs), paraphrased as follows:
I. The specification alleging sexual harassment in violation of a lawful general order fails to state an offense;
II. The evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for sexual harassment in violation of a lawful general order;
III. The specifications alleging violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct Manual fail to state an offense, and the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support those guilty findings; and
IV. Appellant was denied the right to trial by a panel of members at a special court-martial in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. | Docket No. 1488 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/2/2024 | 7/2/2024 | | 7/2/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MIERES (84 M.J. 682) CORRECTED | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 92 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-3, restriction for 15 days, and a letter of 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. 1491 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/10/2024 | 6/10/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |