For Appellee: Captain Daniel H. Karna, JA (argued); Major Ellen S. Jennings, JA;, Major LaJohnne A. White, JA; Major Thomas E. Brzozowski, JA (on brief). 13 December 2012, SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON REMAND, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of failure to obey a lawful order and assault consummated by a, battery in violation of Articles 92 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10, U.S.C.
The military judge in petitioners case has held him in, contempt for appearing with an unauthorized beard in court and has ordered that, petitioner be forcibly shaved. United States v., Gentile, 1 M.J.Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia [hereinafter AR 670—1], para.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Peter Kageleiry, Jr., JA;, See, e.g., United States v. Santiago, 56 M.J. Rule for Courts-Martial 1102 provides procedures to, conduct post-trial sessions and should not be relied upon to limit a military judges, authority to act following an interlocutory appeal.
In a, Petition for Relief in the Nature of an Extraordinary Writ and Application for Stay, of Proceedings, petitioner asks this court to grant extraordinary relief by: (1), staying the trial proceedings pending a decision of this Court on the petition, and (2), issue a Writ ordering the military judge to revoke his order removing Petitioner from, the proceedings.
CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the entire record, including the matters personally, raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A., 1982), the court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Charge I and its, Specification as finds appellant did, on or about 28 December 2011, without, authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: B Troop, 4th Battalion, 7th Cavalry located at Camp Hovey, Republic of Korea, and did remain so absent until on or,...
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA (on brief). 20 December 2012, SUMMARY DISPOSITION, KRAUSS, Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of attempted violation of a lawful general, regulation, one specification of absence from place of duty, three specifications of, failure to go to appointed place of duty, and one specification of failure to obey a, lawful general regulation, in violation of...
See also Jones 68 M.J., at 473., 2, The total maximum punishment agreed to by the parties and explained to appellant, by the military judge was a dishonorable discharge, confinement for fifty-six years, and six months, total forfeitures of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the, grade of E-1. 3 , LUEHRING—ARMY 20120077, In her findings, the military judge mistakenly found appellant guilty of, willfully suffering military property to be wrongfully disposed of, which includes a, maximum...
Appellants sentence should be approved by this court on the basis of the, entire record, including aggravating evidence presented at trial that appellant, decided to go AWOL at a time when his place of duty was with his fellow soldiers, who were deployed in Afghanistan conducting hazardous duties.
30 November 2012 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, MARTIN, Judge: A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of dereliction of duty, damaging government property, larceny, of military property, wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle, larceny of personal, property, and possessing items of personal identification of another without their, consent, pursuant to Articles 92, 108, 121, and 134, Uniform Code of Military, Justice, 10 U.S.C.
Appellant was credited with a total of 243 days of confinement, credit for pretrial confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J.we find a substantial basis in law and fact to reject appellants plea to Charge II and, its Specification.Judge KRAUSS and Judge BURTON concur.
The facts in this, record protect appellant against any second federal prosecution for marijuana use on, the dates in question. 2, MALADY— ARMY 20120005 While we find appellant was not prejudiced by the difference in the pleadings, and the proof, we stress the need for all participants at trial to pay close heed to the, admissions made by an accused during the providence inquiry to ensure that any, matters seemingly inconsistent with the plea can be resolved at trial and not on, appeal.
1982), we disapprove the findings of guilty as to Charge II and its, Specifications, affirm the lesser-included offense of failure to obey an order in, violation of Article 92 as to Specification 1 of Charge II, and find the remaining, findings of guilty correct in law and fact.
23 May 2012 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, YOB, Judge: A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, found appellant guilty pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of wrongful use of controlled, substances, one specification of larceny of prescription medications of a value less, than $500.00, two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, and two, specifications of soliciting another to wrongfully distribute controlled substances, in, violation of Articles 112a, 121, 133, and 134,...
Appellants remaining Grostefon allegations lack merit. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of the, Specification of The Charge as finds that appellant did, at or near Fort Carson Colorado, between on or about 15 March 2010 and on or about 3 May 2010 knowingly and wrongfully possess a Western Digital hard disk drive containing, some amount of child pornography as defined in 18 United States Code Section, 2256, such conduct being of a nature to...
we find a substantial basis in law and fact to reject appellants plea to Charge II and, its Specification.On consideration of the entire record, including consideration of the issues, personally raised by the appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J.
For Petitioner: Mr. Virlenys H. Palma, Esquire (on brief, reply brief & on brief in, response to specified issue); Therefore, the Padilla decision is not applicable, to petitioners case unless it is not a new rule or it falls within one of two, exceptions., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct.
12 October 2012 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, YOB, Senior Judge: A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a, bad-conduct discharge, convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one, specification of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, one specification of, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, two specifications of violating, a lawful general regulation, and one specification of wrongfully using marijuana, in, violation of Articles 86, 90,...
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA. 31 October 2012 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of conspiracy to obstruct justice, failure to obey a lawful, general order, wrongful use of heroin, wrongful distribution of heroin, wrongful, possession of heroin, unlawful entry, and obstruction of justice in violation of, Articles 81, 92, 112a, 130, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice,...
We have considered the record of trial and the parties pleadings, and, on, consideration of the entire case, find in relation to Charge I and its Specification, only so much of the finding of guilty that states appellant did, at or near Fort Polk Louisiana, on or about 8 May 2011, for the purpose of avoiding his duty to return to, his unit in Afghanistan, a deployed environment, intentionally injure himself by, discharging a .40 caliber pistol round through the palm of his right hand, in,...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, SIMS, COOK, and GALLAGHER, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Specialist JACOB J. GALL, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20110992 Headquarters, Fort Drum, Gregory Bockin, Military Judge, Lieutenant Colonel Olga M.For Appellee: Pursuant to A.C.C.A Rule 15.2, no response filed. 17 April 2012 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial, convicted appellant pursuant to his...
