| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | United States V GUZMAN 2019 WL 2865998 | A general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of making false official statements and two specifications of sexual assault (one of which the military judge conditionally dismissed), in violation of Articles 107 and 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge, which the Convening Authority approved.
Appellant raises several issues,1 but we reach only one: whether the Staff Judge Advocate’s (SJA’s) advice to the Convening Authority was deficient. We conclude it was and remand for new post-trial processing.
Article 60, UCMJ, previously conferred unfettered discretion on convening authorities to
modify findings and sentences, so long as there was no increase in severity. Article 60(c)(1),
UCMJ (1996); United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 145 (C.A.A.F. 2010). That changed when
Congress amended Article 60 to provide that, subject to listed exceptions, convening authorities
“may not disapprove, commute, or suspend in whole or in part an adjudged sentence of
confinement for more than six months or a sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad
conduct discharge.” Pub.L. No. 113–66 (2013). This amendment became effective on 24 June
2014. For cases where either all offenses were committed prior to that date, or where some
offenses occurred before that date and some after (known as “straddling offenses cases”), the
pre-2014 version of Article 60 applies. Id.; Pub.L. No. 113–291 (2014). | Docket No. 1461 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/2/2019 | 7/2/2019 | | 7/3/2019 |
| 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. SHAFRAN (2023 WL 6534065) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact and one specification of providing alcohol to a minor in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
Appellant raises eight assignments of error (AOEs), paraphrased and renumbered as follows: There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for abusive sexual contact;
II. The Article 134 specification (providing alcohol to a person under the age of 21) is fatally defective because it does not allege a crime or words of criminality;
III. The military judge erred by instructing the members that Appellant was charged with providing alcohol to a minor when the relevant charge neither alleged Ms. E.F. was a minor nor cited any standard under which Ms. E.F. could be considered a minor;
IV. There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for providing alcohol to a person under 21 years of age;
V. Ms. E.F.’s unsworn statement discussing the impact of conduct for which Appellant was acquitted violated Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(c);2
VI. The convening authority erred by failing to provide reasons for his denial of Appellant’s deferment request;
VII. Dr. A.H. exceeded the scope of his approved expertise by providing improper and speculative psychological interpretation of Ms. E.F.’s conduct and gave the equivalent of “human lie detector” testimony; and
VIII. Appellant was deprived of his right to a unanimous verdict. | Docket No. 1480 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/6/2023 | 10/6/2023 | | 4/10/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SHAFRAN RECONSIDERATION EN BANC (84 M.J. 548) | On 6 October 2023, we issued an en banc opinion affirming the findings and sentence. Appellant timely filed a motion urging us to reconsider our opinion without the participation of Judges Tasikas and Parker, whom he asserted were disqualified. After careful consideration of the motion, Judge Tasikas decided to recuse himself not due to any actual conflict, but to avoid even the appearance of conflict based on the particular circumstances of the case. Judge Parker declined to recuse herself, finding no basis to do so. We then granted the motion for reconsideration as well as Appellant’s motion to raise an additional assignment of error (AOE) in light of United States v. Jeter, 84 M.J. 68 (C.A.A.F. 2023). Having reconsidered the case and the additional AOE without Judge Tasikas’s participation, we again affirm the findings and sentence.
A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact and one specification of providing alcohol to a minor, in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
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 are affirmed. | Docket No. 1480 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/26/2024 | 2/26/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| 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 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 |
| 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 | ORDER PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF COOPER V FAY | Petitioner is an accused at a general court-martial convened by Commander, Atlantic Area. He has filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, and requests a stay of further proceedings while this Court considers the matter. He seeks an order directed to the military judge, ordering him “to respect the orders of the Courts of the States of Washington and Idaho.”
Charges against Petitioner were preferred on 27 September 2016, charging him with false official statement in a specification alleging that he falsely signed an official record that was false in that CC was not his spouse; and with larceny of services in a specification alleging that he falsely pretended that CC was eligible for medical benefits. He asserts that the State of Washington, by order dated November 18, 2016, recognizes a marriage between him and CC from October 11, 2000. Petitioner’s grievance lies in the military judge’s order of 18 April 2017, denying Petitioner’s motion for a ruling that, as a matter of law, Petitioner and CC have been married continuously from October 11, 2000 to present without interruption. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 002-17 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/4/2017 | 6/4/2017 | | 10/7/2019 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | IN RE A.H. PETITION - ORDER (79 M.J. 672) | Petitioner, an alleged crime victim under Article 6b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), seeks a writ of mandamus reversing a military judge’s order in the pending case of United States v. AMT3 Daniel Rankin without allowing Petitioner the right to move to quash or modify said subpoena; and a stay pending our decision on granting a writ.1 On 26 August 2019, we granted a stay for two days, and ordered Petitioner to provide certain documents from the trial proceedings to date; to address the question of whether a victim has a right to a second opportunity to raise objections that could have been raised earlier in a case where the victim has already submitted an objection; and to provide to this Court what Petitioner would submit to the military judge if the petition is granted. Petitioner filed a response to our order on 27 August 2019. | MISC. DOCKET NO. 002-19 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/28/2019 | 8/28/2019 | | 10/7/2019 |