| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (UNPUBLISHED) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of indecent recording, in violation of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. GOODELL 79 M.J. 614: (on reconsid) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, pursuant his pleas, of four specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, three specifications of false official statements, one specification of stalking, two specifications of extortion, two specifications of assault consummated by battery, and one specification of obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 92, 107, 120a, 127, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge adjudged a sentence of reduction to E-1, confinement for one year, and a bad-conduct discharge, which the Convening Authority approved. The pretrial agreement had no impact on the sentence.
This Court affirmed the findings and sentence on 10 September 2018. On 10 October 2018, Appellant requested reconsideration, after learning that the military judge was serving as a prosecutor at the same time she presided over this case. We granted reconsideration on 30 October 2018, and ordered briefing. On 19 December 2018, after briefing by both parties, we ordered a post-trial hearing in accordance with United States v. DuBay, 37 C.M.R. 411 (C.M.A. 1967).
Following the post-trial hearing, Appellant assigned the following errors:
I. Appellant was denied due process when he was tried by a military judge who failed to disclose that she concurrently served as trial counsel in another court-martial.
II. The military judge was impermissibly detailed to preside over Appellant’s court-martial while she served as lead trial counsel in another court-martial.
III. Article 16’s requirement that the accused know the identity of the military judge when choosing to be tried by judge alone was not satisfied when Appellant did not know his judge was actively serving as a prosecutor.
We consider the first issue and reverse. We do not reach the remaining issues. Our opinion of 10 September 2018 is withdrawn and replaced with the present opinion. | Docket No.1458 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/3/2019 | 7/3/2019 | | 7/3/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. GOODELL OPINION 78 MJ 585 | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, pursuant his pleas, of four specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, three specifications of false official statements, one specification of stalking, two specifications of extortion, two specifications of assault consummated by battery, and one specification of obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 92, 107, 120a, 127, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge adjudged a sentence of reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement for one year, and a bad-conduct discharge, which the Convening Authority approved. While there was a pretrial agreement, it had no impact on the sentence.
Before us, Appellant asserts that:
(1) He had no duty to obey the military protective orders (MPOs) that he pleaded guilty to violating because they lacked a military purpose and unjustifiably deprived him of personal rights; and
(2) A subsequent MPO issued after trial: (a) subjected him to unlawful punishment; (b) constituted unlawful command influence; and (c) denied him the benefit of his pretrial agreement by subjecting him to punishment beyond that agreed upon.1
We disagree and affirm | Docket No. 1458 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 9/10/2018 | 9/10/2018 | | 9/12/2018 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ 78 MJ 643 | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of assault consummated by battery in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for eight months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Although there was a pretrial agreement, it did not affect the sentence, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant asserts that his three convictions under Article 128 were multiplicious.1 We agree and thus consolidate the specifications and reassess the sentence. This moots Appellant’s remaining assertions of unreasonable multiplication of charges and sentence severity. | Docket No. 1452 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/31/2018 | 10/31/2018 | | 11/5/2018 |
| 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 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 |
| 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. STEEN (UNPUBLISHED) (2020 WL 808380) | A special court-martial of officer and enlisted members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of wrongful introduction and distribution of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for fifteen days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant raises two assignments of error: (1) the military judge abused his discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.); and (2) the evidence was factually insufficient to support the convictions. We agree that the military judge’s admission of evidence under M.R.E. 404(b) was erroneous, but conclude it was harmless. We reject the second issue summarily, as we are convinced of Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Docket No. 1464 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/15/2020 | 1/15/2020 | | 1/22/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | MCGARRY V CAPT KULISCH ET AL ORDER | According to the petition, Petitioner was tried on 2-5 October 2007 at Boston, Massachusetts, by a special court-martial convened by Commander, First Coast Guard District. Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of four specifications of maltreatment, of causing a false official statement to be made, and of using reproachful words. The court sentenced Petitioner to confinement for one month, reduction to E-3, forfeiture of two-thirds of all pay and allowances for two months, and a reprimand. Detailed defense counsel submitted a request to defer confinement to the Convening Authority on 5 October 2007, which was denied.
Petitioner has filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that he is currently illegally confined by virtue of erroneous rulings by the military judge prohibiting the defense from arguing an accusing witness’s character for untruthfulness under M.R.E. 608(b) and 608(c). Therefore, Petitioner requests that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate release from confinement. It is, by the Court, this 12th day of October, 2007, | MISC. DOCKET N0. 001-08 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/12/2007 | 10/12/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V FLORES (80 M.J. 501) | After a General Court-Martial of officer members returned a verdict against Appellee, the military judge declared a mistrial. The Government appeals. We consider three questions:
(1) whether Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), confers jurisdiction over appeals of mistrial declarations;
(2) whether Appellee waived his opportunity for a mistrial by declining to request one pre-verdict; and
(3) whether the military judge abused his discretion by declaring a mistrial.
We conclude that we have jurisdiction, that Appellee did not waive his opportunity for a mistrial, and that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in declaring one. We thus deny the Government’s appeal.
Background
The impetus for the mistrial was that evidence that had been the subject of extensive litigation and expressly ruled inadmissible was, nonetheless, inadvertently provided to the members as they retired to deliberate on findings. Appellee was charged with abusive sexual contact of two shipmates, assault consummated by battery of one of them, and obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 120, 128, and 134, UCMJ.1 Prior to trial, the Government provided notice under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b), Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2019 ed.), that it intended to introduce evidence that a third, non-participating witness, Fireman (FN) A.J., alleged that Appellee sexually assaulted her as well. After the Defense moved to suppress the evidence, the Government responded that the evidence was needed to prove obstruction of justice because it was the investigation into FN A.J.’s allegation that Appellee allegedly obstructed. | Docket No. 001-62-20 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/1/2020 | 6/1/2020 | | 6/2/2020 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ST PIERRE - 59 MJ 750 | Appellant has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s decision of 21 January 2004 affirming the findings of guilty and a sentence, which included an approved bad-conduct discharge. In his motion of 19 February 2004, Appellant asserts that after the case was referred to this Court, but before our decision was rendered, Appellant was discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge. He now asks this Court to determine, upon reconsideration, whether the general discharge operated as a remission of the bad-conduct discharge, and requests leave to file a brief on this issue. In a response, the Government has joined Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, but has taken a different position on the issue presented. The Government asserts that the discharge was a legal nullity, having been issued without authority, and that, upon reconsideration, we should determine whether the discharge was valid. If we conclude that it was valid, the Government wants this Court to then decide whether the administrative discharge operates to remit the bad-conduct discharge. The Government also requests leave to file a brief on the issue. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999), it is by the Court this 5th day of March 2004. | DOCKET NO. 1193 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/5/2004 | 3/5/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V UPHAM - 64 MJ 547 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of members. Pursuant to his plea of guilty, Appellant was convicted of one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman, in violation of Article 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Contrary to his plea, Appellant was also convicted of one specification of committing an aggravated assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to a dismissal, confinement for nine months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The Convening Authority approved the
sentence as adjudged. | Docket No. 1235 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/20/2006 | 12/20/2006 | | 10/25/2017 |
| 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 RIVERA - 62 MJ 564 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Despite his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of one specification of attempted forcible sodomy on a child under the age of twelve years in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of forcible sodomy on a child under the age of twelve years in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and three specifications of taking indecent liberties with a female under sixteen years of age, and one specification of committing an indecent act upon a female under sixteen years of age in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three years, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority changed the adjudged reduction from E-1 to E-4 and approved the sentence as changed. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned eight errors, three of which were orally argued. | Docket No. 1216 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/1/2005 | 11/1/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BRIDGES - 58 MJ 540 | Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer members. Contrary to his pleas, he was convicted of two specifications of indecent acts with a child in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of rape of a child under age 12 in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and one specification of forcible sodomy upon a child under age 12 in violation of Article 125, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 22 years, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority disapproved and dismissed one specification of indecent acts and the sole specification and charge of forcible sodomy, and approved the findings of guilt for the charge and one specification of indecent acts with a child and the charge and one specification of rape of a child under 12. The convening authority approved the reduction,forfeitures, and punitive discharge as adjudged, but approved confinement for only 20 years. | Docket No. 1147 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/6/2003 | 3/6/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |