For Appellant: Colonel Tania M. Martin, JA; Accordingly, the appeal by the United States, under Article 62, UCMJ is DENIED. The stay in the proceedings, ordered on 7, September 2017, of appellees court-martial at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is lifted and, the court-martial is permitted to proceed.
Military appellate, courts have found a dismissal of a charge is subterfuge if its sole purpose is to, avoid a speedy-trial violation, and that such a dismissal does not reset the 120-day, speedy-trial clock. As [appellee], stated it, he felt his rights come second to [PV2 EWs], whims.
While, petitioner focuses on alleged violatio ns of AGs constitutio na l and statutory rights in, the issuance and execution of the search and seizure authorization, 2 the issue is, whether AG is entitled to discovery and the production of documents when no court-, martial exists. See U.S. Const.
Petitioners special victim counsel [hereinafter SVC] filed a Request for, Reconsideration of Dismissal of Petitioners Request for Extraordinary Relief;Petitioners SVC reasserts 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and the All Writs Act, 28, U.S.C. § 1651, provide this Court with jurisdiction over his writ.
This is because, and critically, neither party assert s that the accused, provided his passcode while being questioned after having waived his rights. 39, 42 (1957), is a case where the court stated it was not bound by, the governme nt s concession on appeal to that appellants claim of error .
As the military judge excluded the evidence under the third prong (without, directly ruling on whether the evidence met the other requirements), we address only, the narrow issue before us. In such cases the in-court testimony, is usually the better evidence than any out of court statement.
2) released to defense counsel; 2011) (quoting, United States v. Brooks, 296 U.S. App. Under the, RPIs reading of the rule, no witness would have a psychotherapist-patient privilege, in any case where the accused is charged with a crime against his child (or his, spouses child).
25, Based on our review of petitioners instant submissions, the trial record, and the, appellate record before this court, his multiple claims of ineffective assistance of, counsel are demonstrably improbable, which enables us to resolve them without an, evidentiary hearing.
Headquarters, Fort Stewart, John S.T. We find, appellant affirmatively waived this issue through his pretrial agreement and, unconditional guilty plea, and, in any event, the specifications were not unreasonably, multiplied.Our superior court, in United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Christopher D. Carrier, JA; We review a military judges decision to accept a, guilty plea for an abuse of discretion by determining whether the record as a whole, demonstrates a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the guilty plea. UCMJ art.
The stipulation of fact was silent as, to either effect of discipline on the unit or reputation of the service. UCMJ art. Where appellant only admits to the elements, and, the totality of the inquiry fails to clarify the factual basis to support appellants, actions, the plea is improvident.
See also UCMJ art.That same day, appellants defense counsel requested the CA defer any, automatic forfeitures and the adjudged reduction. This request was moot, since appellant, was released from confinement before action and placed on voluntary excess leave, about three weeks after trial.
However, regardless of any error, appellant has failed to demonstrate any, material prejudice to his substantial rights where such evidence appeared to be a part, of the defense sentencing strategy and where such underlying conduct was also, included in the stipulation of fact.
The convening authority, approved the adjudged sentence. The government introduced sufficient evidence to find appellants, possession of child pornography was service discrediting, but it offered no direct, evidence and did not argue that this conduct was prejudicial to good order and, discipline.
First Lieutenant Gardner stated to a friend that he wanted to receive, more packages of marijuana and [wanted] to help his friends . A military judge, sitting as, general court-martial, sentenced appellant to a dismissal and confinement for, thirteen months., United States v. Quick, 59 M.J.
We hold that the, military judge did not err in accepting appellants guilty pleas to obtaining services, under false pretenses because appellant admitted in his plea inquiry that the subject, of his wrongful obtaining, lines of credit, did in fact have value. United States v., Johnson, 42 M.J.
For Appellant: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA;In United States v. Joseph, Judge Wiss described the role of a court when the, facts of the misconduct do not squarely fit the offense charged.
For Appellant: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA; United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J.Appellant claims CPT MC never contacted witnesses and agencies who had, information on CR and her biological mother.appellants statements at trial were unequivocal regarding his satisfaction with his, defense counsel.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Christopher D. Carrier, JA; UCMJ art. United States v. Gifford, 75 M.J. As the bodily harm element common to, both offenses was the sexual act and sexual contact, which already had a specific, mens rea, we do not read an additional mens rea requirement into them.
For Appellant: Captain Cody Cheek, JA; UCMJ art. Even if the issue had been preserved, however, after applying the factors set, forth by our superior court in Quiroz, we conclude appellants convictions for, Specifications 3 and 5 of Charge II were not unreasonably multiplied for findings.
