30 September 2013 SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW, AND ACTION ON APPEAL, BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO, ARTICLE 62, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, Per Curiam: Appellee is charged with wrongfully possessing child pornography and, obstructing justice in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice 10 U.S.C.
2 In stating his conclusions of law the military judge wrote: The similar motive requirement considers the similarity of, the underlying issues and the context of the questioning, . . . [at the] Article 32 [hearing], the Defense had no basis, to seek to impeach [ST] on her recantation, and will not be, able to confront her on this recantation if the Government, were permitted to offer such evidence in the form of her, Article 32 [hearing] testimony at trial.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA. 20 December 2013 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, KRAUSS, Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of attempted manufacture of AM-2201 (a, Schedule I controlled substance) with the intent to distribute and one specification, of possession of AM- 2201 with the intent to distribute in violation of Articles 80, and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
Cf. United States v. Spiess, 71 M.J.When reviewing matters under Article 62(b), UCMJ, [a, service] court may act only with respect to matters of law.whether appellee understood his rights, whether appellee was threatened, and, whether SA AP used appellees prior coerced statement.
For Appellant: Major Amy E. Nieman, JA; United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. Moreover, the plea inquiry established facts demonstrating that, appellants conduct was service discrediting in that his actions clearly harmed the, reputation of the service.Senior Judge COOK and Judge HAIGHT concur.
Furthermore, during the contested portion on a charge of which appellant, was acquitted and throughout presentencing, all evidence from both parties, established that appellant was not absent without leave from his losing unit at Fort, Sill, but from his gaining unit at Fort Hood. 4, ISAACSON—ARMY 20130151 The Manual for Courts-Martial discusses this very scenario and provides, a, person undergoing a transfer between activities is ordinarily considered to be, attached to the activity to which...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, YOB, KRAUSS, and BURTON, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private First Class PHILIP B. HUNT, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20121155 Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Stephen E. Castlen and Richard A. Weis, Military Judges, Colonel James F. Garrett, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captain Ian M.
Appellant was charged with and pled guilty to the following Article 120 UCMJ specifications: SPECIFICATION 1: In that [appellant], U.S. Army, did, at or near, Sierra Vista, Arizona, between on or about 1 July 2010 and on or about, 1 October 2010, engage in a sexual act, to wit: penetrate with his penis the vulva of [SPC TL], who was substantially incapacitated.
19 December 2013 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of two specifications of absence without leave, eight, specifications of failure to repair, four specifications of failure to obey a lawful, order, and five specifications of wrongful use of controlled substances in violation, of Articles 86, 92, and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
The military, judge also convicted appellant, contrary to his p leas, of two specifications of, abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ . 1 The military judge, sentenced appellant to forty months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, COOK, CAMPANELLA, and HAIGHT, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private E1 CHRISTINE GONZALEZ, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20120984 Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Stephen E. Castlen, Military Judge, Colonel James F. Garrett, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, COOK, HAIGHT, and MAGGS, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private E1 JOHNELL JOLIVETTE, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20120938 Seventh U.S. Army Joint Multinational Training Command, Joshua S. Shuey, Military Judge, Lieutenant Colonel David E. Mendelson, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captain Brian J. Sullivan, JA (on brief).
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, YOB, LIND, KRAUSS, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Specialist EDUARDITO DEHOYOS-GUASH, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20120894 Headquarters, Fort Stewart, Tiernan P.For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Captain Kenneth W., Borgnino, JA (on brief). 28 August 2013 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, KRAUSS, Judge: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas,...
For Appellee: Major Robert A. Rodrigues, JA (on brief). 7 June 2013 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of dereliction of duty, larceny (seven specifications), and, wrongfully stealing mail (seven specifications), in violation of Articles 92, 121, and, 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
CONCLUSION On consideration of the entire record and those matters personally raised by, appellant pursuant to Grostefon, the Court affirms only so much of the finding of, guilty of Charge II and its specification that appellant did, at or near Fort Riley Kansas, between on or about 1 December 2009 and on or about 31 January 2010 without proper authority, sell to an unknown person, one case .50 caliber rounds and, one case 5.56 rounds, military property of the United States.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, COOK, CAMPANELLA, HAIGHT, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private First Class JACOB B. RICHERT, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20120781 Headquarters, Fort Carson, Timothy Grammel, Military Judge, Colonel John S.T.1986) and, United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include the factors, identified by Judge Baker in his concurring op inion in Moffeit, only so much of the, sentence as provides for a...
During the plea colloquy, appellant, acknowledged that Detective TB worked for the state of Alabama and was, discharging the functions of his office when receiving appellants false statement. UCMJ art. Rule for Courts -Martial, 910(e)., The government, citing to United States v. Davenport, 9 M.J.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, COOK, CAMPANELLA, and HAIGHT, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Staff Sergeant ALLEN D. CHESTNUT, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20120612 Headquarters, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Gregory A. Gross, Military Judge, Colonel Jeffery D. Pedersen, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Richard E. Gorini, JA; Captain Robert Feldmeier , JA (on, brief).
Fisher, JA;, Captain Kenneth W. Borgnino, JA (on brief). 20 August 2013 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, COOK, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of wrongfully attempting to view child, pornography on divers occasions, three specifications of wrongfully attempting to, produce child pornography on divers occasions, and three specifications of, wrongfully viewing child pornography on divers occasions, in...
During trial, the military judge, noted, and the parties agreed, that all of the indecent language alleged in, Specification 1 of Charge II was a subset of the language and actions that appellant, used to attempt to persuade, induce, or entice RW to engage in sexual activity., Although the military judge considered these specifications an unreasonable, multiplication of charges for sentencing, we further find that the specifications are, likewise an unreasonable multiplication of charges for...
