| 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 RODRIGUEZ 2018 W.L. 3130849 | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of sexual abuse of a child and adultery in violation of Articles 120b and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 21 September 2016, the military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for eighteen months, and a bad-conduct discharge. On 27 February 2017, the Convening Authority disapproved the reduction and waived automatic forfeitures for a period of six months but otherwise approved the sentence.
Appellant raises four assignments of error: (1) the military judge abused his discretion by admitting evidence that Appellant had a “foot fetish”; (2) the evidence of sexual abuse of a child is legally and factually insufficient; (3) the Staff Judge Advocate misadvised the convening authority about his authority in taking action; and (4) Appellant was prejudiced by unreasonable post-trial delay.1 We disagree and affirm. | Docket No. 1450 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/27/2018 | 6/27/2018 | | 6/27/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MARTINEZROQUE (MERITS) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, of one specification of false official statements, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of indecent language, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for twelve months, and a bad-conduct discharge, which the Convening Authority approved. | Docket No. 1465 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/4/2019 | 10/4/2019 | | 10/7/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V PICCININNO 2018 W.L. 5492517 | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of possession of child pornography under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for sixteen months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but, pursuant to a pretrial agreement, suspended all confinement in excess of 120 days.
Appellant raises two issues pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982): (1) the court-martial lacked personal jurisdiction over him; and (2) his plea to possessing child pornography was improvident. We disagree.
Jurisdiction
While it is undisputed that Appellant, a Coast Guard reservist, was serving on active duty and thus subject to the UCMJ at the time of the offense, Appellant avers the court-martial lacked jurisdiction at the time of trial for two reasons: (1) the orders recalling him to active duty cited the incorrect statutory authority; and (2) he was improperly retained in the individual ready reserve (IRR). | Docket No. 1454 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/30/2018 | 10/30/2018 | | 10/30/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. CHOCK (84 M.J. 578) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for ten months and reduction to E-1. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, Appellant has assigned as error that his due process right to timely appellate review was violated when the Government delayed providing notice of his right to appeal and ultimately took 213 days to transmit his record of trial to this Court.
These delays bespeak a lack of institutional diligence and are unreasonable, warranting some relief. The Government unquestionably has responsibility for required post-trial processing, including sufficient knowledge and supervision to accomplish it in a timely manner. This includes responsibility for correctly assembling the ROT and attachments. As we noted in United States v. Woods, No. 1481, 2023 WL 7555387 at *4 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2023) (unpublished), both quality and timeliness of records have been suffering in recent years, and improvement to post-trial processing is important to the integrity and perception of military justice in the Coast Guard. We look forward to such improvement, which we are aware is being pursued.
We will disapprove one month of Appellant’s sentence to confinement.
Decision
We determine that the findings are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty are affirmed. Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for nine months and reduction to E-1 is affirmed. | Docket No. 1490 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/20/2024 | 2/20/2024 | | 2/27/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. PACHECO (2019 WL 2053617) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of a single specification of abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement for forty-five days, and a bad-conduct discharge, which the convening authority approved.
Appellant asserts three errors: (1) the convening authority’s improper selection of potential court-martial members coerced Appellant into electing trial by military judge; (2) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) his sentence is inappropriately severe.2 We disagree and affirm.
Background
Gunner’s Mate Third Class (GM3) J.D. was at a bar during a port call in Kodiak, Alaska, dancing with a friend when she felt a hand reach into the back of her pants and touch her buttocks skin-to-skin. She momentarily froze, but then turned to see Appellant immediately behind her, looking at her and smiling. She looked at him and said words to the effect of, “If you ever touch me again, I’ll f---in’ knock your teeth out.” (R.1AUG at 99.) She then walked back to her seat, turned around, and saw Appellant also turning toward her, still smiling at her. One of GM3 J.D.’s shipmates asked her what that was all about; she responded that Appellant had “just stuck his hands down the back of my pants and I need to go.” (Id. at 100.) | Docket No. 1460 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/6/2019 | 5/6/2019 | | 5/7/2019 |
| 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 BROWN (82 M.J. 702) | 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.
The findings of guilty to Specification 2 of Charge II and to Charge II are set aside. Specification 2 of Charge II and Charge II are dismissed with prejudice. Only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to E-6, 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 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 | 6/6/2022 | 6/6/2022 | | 6/8/2022 |