CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GARCIA E - 68 MJ 561.Appellant was tried by a general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: two specifications of insubordinate conduct toward a superior petty officer, in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; two specifications of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of committing an indecent act, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for eight months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.Docket No. 1304Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/3/200911/3/200910/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V WEDDLE - 61 MJ 506Appellant was tried by a special court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Despite his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of three specifications of assault consummated by a battery in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for six months, forfeitures of $737 pay per month for six months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned three errors.Docket No. 1184Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/2/200412/2/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V FAZO - 63 MJ 730Appellant was tried by a special court-martial, military judge alone. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of desertion with intent to shirk important service, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of missing movement, in violation of Article 87, UCMJ. Appellant was acquitted of a third charge. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for three months. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended all confinement in excess of sixty days for six months from the date of the Convening Authority’s actionDocket No. 1239Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/25/20065/26/200610/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BRIDGES - 65 MJ 531Appellant was tried by a special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: two specifications of insubordinate conduct toward a superior petty officer, in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongfully using marijuana, one specification of wrongfully using cocaine, and one specification of wrongfully using Xanax (Alprazolam), a Schedule IV controlled substance, all in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of breaking restriction, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for 120 days, against which he ordered credit for 104 days of pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and applied the Allen credit against the approved confinement, but did not order the sentence executed. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.Docket No. 1233Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/18/20075/18/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BAILEY (UNPUBLISHED)Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of three specifications of sexual assault and one specification of abusive sexual contact, all in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for eighteen months, reduction to E-1, a dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. This is our second review of this case. In our first review, we affirmed the findings and the sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) granted a petition for review and affirmed our decision as to findings but reversed as to sentence. United States v. Bailey, 71 M.J. 11, 16 (C.A.A.F. 2017). CAAF noted that although we had affirmed the sentence as approved—which included forfeiture of all pay and allowances—we failed to reference the forfeitures when reciting the sentence in our opening paragraph. CAAF concluded that our opinion was thus ambiguous and ordered the record remanded for clarification. Id. at 15–16. Our omission of reference to forfeiture of pay and allowances was a scrivener's error. We now clarify by affirming the entire approved sentence, including forfeiture of all pay and allowances.Docket No. 1428Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/5/20182/5/20182/6/2018
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ROAN - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of four specifications of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Two of the specifications of false official statement were held to be multiplicious for sentencing purposes. The court sentenced Appellant to be confined for thirty days and to be dismissed. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1277Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/23/20087/23/200810/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GARCIA D - 69 MJ 658Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of aggravated sexual assault upon a substantially incapacitated person, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of wrongfully furnishing alcohol to minors, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1317Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/3/20106/3/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V VICKREY - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for five years, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and waived the forfeiture of all pay and allowances in favor of Appellant’s dependents as allowed by Article 58b(b), UCMJ, for six months.Docket No. 1274Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/10/20086/10/200810/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SMITH - 66 MJ 556Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of attempted failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ; one specification of sodomy, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; one specification of extortion, in violation of Article 127, UCMJ; and one specification of indecent assault, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to a dismissal, confinement for six months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1275Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/9/20084/9/200810/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V STELLON - 65 MJ 802Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, he was convicted of one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for five years, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and suspended confinement in excess of fifty-seven months for thirty months from the date of his action. He also credited fourteen days of confinement in accordance with United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984).Docket No. 1264Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/25/200710/25/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V TUSCAN CORRECTED - 67 MJ 592Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification each of assault with an unloaded firearm and assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twelve months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1281Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/9/200812/9/200810/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SAPP (2023 WL 5440570)Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of officers. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer by providing false information on an application for a concealed handgun permit, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to forfeiture of $3,920 per month for three months, 60 days restriction, and a punitive letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned the following errors: I. The evidence is legally insufficient to prove that Appellant knowingly provided false information when his incomplete concealed handgun permit application was improperly filed by the Arlington County Circuit Court before he had signed it or attested that the information in the application was correct and complete under the penalty of perjury. 2 II. The military judge abused his discretion when he permitted Ms. JB to provide an unsworn victim impact statement during presentencing proceedings in violation of R.C.M. 1001(c) when she was not the victim of an offense of which appellant was found guilty. We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law 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. 001-69-23Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/23/20238/23/20238/23/2023
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GRIJALVA (83 M.J. 669)Appellant was tried by general court-martial including enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of obstructing justice, in violation of Article 131b, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongfully broadcasting an intimate visual image, one specification of accessing a computer application without authority and with intent to defraud, one specification of using without authority a means of identification of another person, and one specification of creating a profile on a computer application with intent to defraud, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for three months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly. 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 two months, reduction to E-3 and a bad-conduct discharge is affirmed.Docket No. 1482Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/9/20235/9/20235/10/2023
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MONGROO PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by general court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of assault with a dangerous weapon, a baseball bat, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and one specification of making a false distress call, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.Docket No. 1204Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/31/20051/31/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SURBROOK PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by general court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: six specifications of larceny of U.S. Coast Guard funds in the amounts of $2,400.00, $2,450.00, $2,450.00, $2,450.00, $2,000.00, and $2,400.00, respectively, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).Docket No. 1201Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/5/20052/5/200510/24/2017
Page 4 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