| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V WARNER - 59 MJ 590 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one specification of use of “MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy), a Schedule I controlled substances [sic] and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance” in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge. Appellant pled not guilty to one specification of distribution of “MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy), Schedule I controlled substances and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance.” The Government presented no evidence of that offense, and the military judge dismissed that specification prior to adjournment. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, as allowed by the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1187 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/7/2003 | 10/7/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V TAYLOR - 61 MJ 640 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the following offenses: one specification of dereliction of duty by willfully failing to use his Government Travel Card for only official government travel business in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of false official statements in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of making a false claim against the United States in violation of Article 132, UCMJ; and one specification of dishonorable failure to pay a lawful debt in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for one hundred days, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence | Docket No. 1207 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/31/2005 | 3/31/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V KING 60 MJ 832 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the following offenses: one specification of unauthorized absence and one specification of failing to go to his place of duty in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of failure to obey a lawful general order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of false official statement in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of wrongfully using marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; three specifications of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; one specification of wrongfully making and delivering a check without sufficient funds in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ; and one specification of pandering in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of sixty-nine days for twelve months from the date Appellant was released from confinement as required by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with fifty-nine days of pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). | Docket No. 1212 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/13/2005 | 1/16/2005 | | 10/24/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HOLZ - 59 MJ 926 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial
agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of wrongful use of marijuana,
two specifications of wrongful distribution of marijuana, and one specification of wrongful
introduction of marijuana onto an installation under the control of the armed forces, in violation
of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, sixty days confinement, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, as allowed by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority credited Appellant with eight days of confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). | Docket No. 1198 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/18/2004 | 5/18/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES v ANDERSON (UNPUBLISHED) | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of eight specifications of presenting a false claim for approval and payment, in violation of Article 124, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-2. The Convening Authority approved the sentence. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, Appellant has assigned as error that Appellant’s due process rights were violated by excessive and unexplained post-trial delay.
Appellant asserts that the ninety days between the convening authority’s action and docketing of the case with this Court was presumptively unreasonable under United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) because it exceeded thirty days, and deprived her of her right to speedy post-trial review. We apply the conclusion we reached in United States v. Tucker, __ M.J. __ , slip op. at 26 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 7 Apr 2022): that Moreno’s use of the convening authority’s action as a terminal benchmark prior to docketing has been superseded by statute and regulation. As in Tucker, there was no presumptively unreasonable delay in this case. Further, even under a full due-process analysis, Appellant was not deprived of due process. | Docket No. 1477 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/11/2022 | 4/11/2022 | | 4/12/2022 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V LUCAS - UNPUBLISHED | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of wrongful distribution of marijuana, one specification of wrongful introduction of marijuana onto a military installation, and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge
sentenced Appellant to forfeiture of $500 per month for six months, reduction to E-3, and a bad conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence. | Docket No. 1310 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/22/2009 | 12/22/2009 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V KESSLER - PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of physically controlling a passenger car while impaired by ecstasy, a schedule one controlled substance, in violation of Article 111, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and two specifications of wrongful use of ecstasy, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. She was also convicted of wrongfully distributing some amount of ecstasy, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, after pleading not guilty to that offense. | Docket No. 1190 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 1/6/2004 | 1/6/2004 | | 10/18/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SCHATZ (MERITS) | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of two specifications of conspiracy, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of fraudulent enlistment, in violation of Article 83, UCMJ; one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and one specification each of wrongfully using marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, and psilocin or psilocybin, all in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for sixty days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the adjudged sentence. | Docket No. 1291 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/20/2008 | 8/20/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BULLA - 58 MJ 715 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: two specifications of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112(a), UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful appropriation of military property in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for forty-nine days, reduction to paygrade E-1, and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for two months. With respect to the adjudged sentence, the pretrial agreement allowed approval of all elements, requiring only that the convening authority suspend the BCD for a period of twelve months from the date of the convening authority’s action. Additionally, however, the pretrial agreement included a misconduct provision that permitted the convening authority, among other things, to disregard the sentence limiting part of the pretrial agreement if the Appellant committed a violation of the UCMJ between the time the sentence was announced at her court-martial and the time the convening authority acted on the sentence. | Docket No. 1171 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/16/2003 | 5/16/2003 | | 10/5/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BRZYSKI (MERITS) | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a plea agreement, Appellant was convicted of seven specifications of indecent recording, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for ten months. The convening authority approved the sentence. 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. 1479 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/13/2022 | 5/13/2022 | | 5/13/2022 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V VIEW PER CURIAM | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of four specifications involving methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA (“Ecstasy”)), a Schedule I controlled substance: one specification for wrongfully using that drug alone, one specification for wrongfully using MDMA (Ecstasy) and methamphetamine, one specification for wrongfully introducing some MDMA (Ecstasy) onto an installation used by the armed forces or subject to the control of the armed forces, and one specification for wrongfully distributing some MDMA (Ecstasy) to SN Steven D. Rothig, USCG, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge,
reduction to E-1, and confinement for 150 days. The Convening Authority approved the | Docket No. 1256 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/16/2006 | 5/16/2006 | | 10/25/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HEDLUND - UNPUBLISHED | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of nine specifications of use, three specifications of distribution, and one specification of introduction to a military vessel of various illegal drugs, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); four specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; one specification of attempted larceny, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ; two specifications of forgery, in violation of Article 123, UCMJ; one specification of unauthorized absence terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and one specification of missing movement, in violation of Article 87, UCMJ. | Docket No. 1261 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/11/2007 | 7/11/2007 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V NICKEY (MERITS) | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification each of larceny of military property, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for three months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. | Docket No. 1288 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/19/2008 | 6/19/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HARRIS - 67 MJ 550 | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification each of wrongfully distributing MDMA (ecstasy), wrongfully using MDMA (ecstasy), and wrongfully using cocaine, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for ninety days, forfeiture of $800 per month for three months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and suspended confinement in excess of sixty days for a period of twelve months from the date of the Convening Authority’s
action, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1279 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/17/2008 | 10/17/2008 | | 10/30/2017 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V STROMAN (MERITS) | Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification each of wrongfully introducing cocaine onto an installation used by the armed forces and of wrongfully distributing cocaine, and three specifications of wrongfully using cocaine, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for ten months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged except for confinement
in excess of 120 days, which was disapproved, pursuant to the pretrial agreement. | Docket No. 1302 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 5/12/2009 | 5/12/2009 | | 10/30/2017 |