petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces did not limit the, retroactive application of Riley. The military judge fulfilled the requirements of, Article 45(a), UCMJ, and United States v. Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. See also Casa-Garcia v. United States, 71 M.J.
We find the, touching of a persons breasts with a stethoscope can constitute the offense of, abusive sexual contact as proscribed by Article 120(d), UCMJ. op.) (The focus of the offense, of indecent assault, however, is on the violation of the personal bodily integrity of, the victim .
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, LIND, KRAUSS, and PENLAND, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellant, v., Staff Sergeant TAHIR L. MUWWAKKIL, United States Army, Appellee ARMY MISC 20140536 Headquarters, 10th Regional Support Group, Wendy P. Daknis, Military Judge
7 Under such circumstances, application of the rule of 6, To hold otherwise would violate not only the principle preferring enforcement of, the specific over a general statute but would also run afoul of the principle that [a], statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part, will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant . . . . Corley, 556 U.S. at, 314 (citing Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (quoting 2A N.
The government now avails itself of the opportunity provided by the military, judge and seeks the suggested writ. 2, HERNANDEZ – ARMY MISC 20140293 DISCUSSION In its supporting brief, the government argues a writ of mandamus, ordering, the military judge to reverse his latest ruling, should issue to clarify that inferior, courts are bound by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces opinions, and to, confirm that the mistake of fact as to age defense does not apply to Article 125 UCMJ.
However, CPT KJ began collecting evidence at this time.United States v. Graham is an instructive federal case. The government, should have better responded to discovery requests and orders from the military, judge, and the government failed to produce some defense witnesses for trial.
Jurisdiction Article 62, UCMJ, states, inter alia: (a)(1) In a trial by court-martial in which a military judge, presides and in which a punitive discharge may be, adjudged, the United States may appeal the following, (other than an order or ruling that is, or that amounts to, a, finding of not guilty with respect to the charge or, specification): (A) An order or ruling of the military judge which, terminates the proceedings with respect to a charge or, specification.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, COOK, TELLITOCCI, and HAIGHT, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Private First Class ESGAR RUIZFERNANDEZ, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20140358 Headquarters, Fort Stewart, John T. Rothwell, Military Judge, Colonel Francisco A.24 November 2014 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his plea, of one specification of absence without...
Quiroz factor, because the government, in the specification alleging wrongful, possession of oxycodone, also charged appellant with wrongfully possessing XLR11. Appellants possession of 10 oxycodone pills on 11 July 2013 was merely, incidental to his attempted distribution of that drug.
For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA;Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 95. The, court applies this substantial basis test by determining whether the re cord raises a, substantial question about the factual basis of appellants guilty plea or the law, underpinning the plea.
For Appellant: Major Robert N. Michaels, JA;Because the image of Ms. RS does not amount to child pornography, it is, unnecessary to further examine the adequacy of the military judges definition of the, offense or appellants explanation of why he believed the image amounted to child, pornography.
, This case is before the court for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ.Specification 2 of Charge I. The government concedes that there is an unreasonable, multiplication of charges for findings because appellant stole the trailer and the, tools at the same time and place. is a single larceny .
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA. 19 May 2014 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, CAMPANELLA, Judge: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of attempting to violate a lawful general, regulation and one specification of violating a lawful general regulation, in violation, of Articles 80 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA (on brief). 17 April 2014 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, CAMPANELLA, Judge A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of wrongful possession of Fentanyl, wrongful use of Fentanyl wrongful possession of Testosterone Enanthate, and stealing Fentanyl in violation of, Articles 112a and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.
Accordingly, we only affirm so much of the Specification of Charge II as, finds that appellant: did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, between on or about 1, December 2012 and on or about 12 February 2013, on, divers occasions without proper authority, sell to persons, who responded to his ads, M4 magazines of some value military property of the United States.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Before, KERN, MORAN, and ALDYKIEWICZ, Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Specialist MICHAEL V. FRANZA, United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20130813 Headquarters, Fort Campbell, Steven E. Walburn, Military Judge, Lieutenant Colonel Sebastian A.FOR THE COURT:, FOR THE COURT: MALCOLMH., MALCOLM H.SQUIRES SQUIRES, JR., JR., ClerkofofCourt, Clerk Court *, Although appellant stipulated as a matter of fact that these offenses were...
18 December 2014 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, CAMPANELLA, Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of absence without leave (AWOL), one, specification of willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, two, specifications of violating a lawful general regulation, one specification of violating, a lawful general order, one specification of false official statement, and one, specification of wrongful use of...
16 September 2014, SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of desertion, two specifications of, wrongful use of a controlled substance, two specifications of rape, one specification, of forcible sodomy, four specifications of assault consummated by battery, and one, specification of aggravated assault, in violation of Articles 85, 112a, 120, 125, and, 128, Uniform Code of Military...
In four separate specifications, appellant was charged with four, incidents alleging maltreatment by: (1) making a junior soldier perform 45-50 push-, ups within 30 minutes of giving blood; We find this, sentence purges the errors in appellants case and is also appropriate., See UCMJ arts.
Moore, JA (on brief). 25 July 2014 SUMMARY DISPOSITION, Per Curiam: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant pursuant to his pleas, of six specifications of assault consummated by battery in, violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ] 10 U.S.C.
