Goodson, JA (on brief in, response to specified issue). 9 August 2010 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted, appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of dereliction of duty on diverse, occasions, sodomy on diverse occasions, and patronizing a prostitute on, diverse occasions in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, [hereinafter UCMJ], Articles 92, 125, and 134; 10 U.S.C.
PRINCE, United States Army, Appellee, ARMY MISC 20100939, 1st Cavalry Division, James L. Varley, Military Judge , Colonel Mark Sydenham, Staff Judge Advocate, For Appellee: Colonel Mark Tellitocci, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M.22 December 2010 SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND ACTION ON APPEAL, BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO , ARTICLE 62, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, Per Curiam: The military judge concluded that the Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private First Class JONATHAN D. FERDON, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20100253 Headquarters, Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk, Charles D. Hayes, Military Judge (arraignment), Gregory A. Gross, Military Judge (trial), Colonel Keith C. Well, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Peter Kageleiry, Jr., JA; Captain Michael E. Korte JA.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, CONN, HOFFMAN, and CARLTON, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private E2 KIARA J. SHEPPARD, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20100056 Headquarters, United States Army Special Operations Command, Gary J. Brockington, Military Judge, Colonel Mark W. Seitsinger, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Grace M. Gallagher, JA; Captain Jess B. Roberts, JA For Appellee: Pursuant to A.C.C.A.
These, footnotes accurately reflected the military judges findings of Guilty of, AWOL for Specification 1, Charge I and Guilty of AWOL terminated by, apprehension for Specification 2, Charge I. [3] This rule states, Before taking action, the convening authority shall, consider the result of trial; the SJAR prepared under R.C.M. 1106; and any, matters submitted by the accused under R.C.M. 1105 or, if applicable 1106(f). (emphasis added.) [4] These enclosures were not attached to the addendum...
HEDGE, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20091130 Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Robert Bowers, Military Judge, Colonel Mitchell R. Chitwood, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Captain Shay Stanford, JA; Captain W. Jeremy Stephens, JA, (on brief).Foss, JA (on brief). 13 May 2010 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial sentenced, appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for six months, to, forfeit two-thirds of your pay and...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Specialist BRANDON J. SMITH, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20091065 Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Gary J. Brockington, Military Judge, Colonel Thomas E. Ayers Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Captain Shay Stanford, JA; Captain Sarah E. Wolf, JA (on, brief).
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private E1 TRAVOCKEOUS D. PORTER, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20090974 U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence and Fort Leonard Wood, Charles D. Hayes Jr., Military Judge, Colonel Steven E. Walburn, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Colonel Mark Tellitocci, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J., Miller, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F....
The stipulation of fact, also stipulated to the admissibility of Prosecution Exhibit (P.E.) 4 [t]he . . . ten (10) photographic images of child pornography . . .[1], The image reprinted on page four of P.E. 4 does not meet the definition of, child pornography because it does not depict sexually explicit conduct., Specifically, this picture of a topless minor female on the beach clad only, in panties does not depict a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or, pubic area of any person as defined...
The parties subsequently, briefed and argued the following error: WHETHER THE ACTING COMMANDER, FORT LEWIS, HAS ANY UCMJ AUTHORITY, DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, AND WHETHER HE HAD, JURISDICTION IN APPELLANTS CASE.822] the Secretary of the, Army appointed the Commander, Fort Lewis, a general court-martial convening, authority, and at all time legally relevant to appellant's case, Brigadier, General (BG) Jeff W. Mathis, III was serving as the Acting Commander, Fort, Lewis.
12 January 2010 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted, appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of conspiracy to commit an indecent act violation of a lawful general order, indecent act, obstruction of justice and wrongful distribution of naked images of fellow soldiers, in violation, of Articles 81, 92, 120, and 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice, [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS In Gen. Order No. 10 Rather, the Commander, I Corps, and the Commander, Fort Lewis, must, each have discrete, identifiable authority under Article 22, UCMJ, to act as a general, court—martial convening authority. action in appellant's case.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, TOZZI, HAM, and SIMS, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Sergeant ANDREW T. FULLERTON United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20090738 Headquarters, Fort Lewis, Kwasi Hawks, Military Judge, Colonel Mitchell R. Chitwood, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Bradley Voorhees, JA; Captain W. Jeremy Stephens, JA, (on brief).
As such, appellant did not have the, opportunity to comment on the error in his post-trial submission, distinguishing this, case from Wilson and Hensley. (. . . continued), THE OMISSION OF DEFENSE SENTENCING WITNESS, TESTIMONY AND THE MILITARY JUDGES, COLLOQUY WITH APPELLANT MAKES THIS, RECORD OF TRIAL SUBSTANTIALLY INCOMPLETE, IN CONTRAVENTION OF [ARTICLE] 54(c), UCMJ AND RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 1103(b)(3)(c) AND IS A SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private First Class DANIEL L. RYCKMAN, JR., United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20090419 Headquarters, 21st Theater Sustainment Command, Edward J. OBrien, Military Judge, Colonel Corey L. Bradley, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew W. Miller, JA; Major Bradley M., Voorhees, JA; Captain Shay Stanford, JA (on brief).
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley, JA; Major Charles C. Choi, JA (on brief). 13 April 2010, SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam:, Appellant asserts the staff judge advocate (SJA)'s addendum prejudiced him by failing to address his assertion of legal error in his Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1105 matters, to wit: after his trial, when he reached the Naval Brig Charleston, appellant was placed in maximum confinement where he sat alone in a cell for eight days for no...
See also Moralez, 65 M.J. at 667 (finding that even if the staff judge, advocate rendered incomplete advice to the convening authority concerning, forfeitures, because appellant, in all likelihood, was released from confinement by, the time of action, appellant would not have been entitled to forfeiture relief a s there, was no longer any pay to forfeit)., 5, The Supreme Court recently found deficient performance where a defense counsel, failed to advise a client concerning the immigration...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before, TOZZI, HAM, and SIMS, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private First Class ANTHONY RAMOS, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20090099 Headquarters, 82d Airborne Division, Patrick J.19 July 2010 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, SIMS, Judge: On consideration of the entire record, including consideration of the, issues personally specified by appellant, we hold the findings of guilty, and the sentence as approved by the...
fact detailing the circumstances surrounding those offenses. Counsel for appellant cite to Article 45(a), for the proposition that if an accused fails to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be, entered in the record, and the court shall proceed as though he has pleaded not, guilty.
(on brief). 26 October 2010 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: An enlisted panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted, appellant, contrary to his pleas, of disobeying a superior commissioned, officer, two specifications of violating a lawful regulation, maltreatment two specifications of making a false official statement, three, specifications of assault, burglary, drunk and disorderly conduct, and, obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 90, 92, 93, 107, 128, 129 and 134,...
