On 28 August 2019, this court ordered the accused to respond to petitioners, requested writ of prohibition addressing (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to, take action on the governments petition and, (2) if so, whether we should grant the, petitioners requested relief.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before ALDYKIEWICZ, SALUSSOLIA, and WALKER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Petitioner Vv. Lieutenant Colonel CHRISTOPHER MARTIN United States Army, Military Judge and Private First Class WILLIS A. GRANT II United States Army, Real Party in Interest ARMY MISC 20190561 Headquarters, Fort Stewart Christopher Martin, Military Judge For Petitioner: Colonel Steven P. Haight, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Wayne H. Williams, JA; Major Catharine M. Parnell,...
The United States appeals the ruling of a military judge suppressing, statements made by the accused. Unlike our reviews under, Article 66, UCMJ, our review is limited solely to questions of law.The military judge then applied the definition of equivocal recognized by, this court in Rittenhouse.
Headquarters, Fort Drum, Teresa Raymond.To corroborate the accuseds statements, the government introduced evidence, that the accused and alleged victim were both deployed together in Honduras, had, hung out with each other and would get intoxicated together, and would both be in, her room.
In relevant part, Article 62, UCMJ, states that the United States may appeal, [a]n order or ruling of the military judge which terminates the proceedings with, respect to a charge or specification. Reese, 76 M.J. We, think that cases under the Rules for Courts-Martial are, distinguishable.
Appellee, contends reconsideration is warranted in light of our Superior Courts decision in, United States v. English, 79 M.J. 2010) (explaining that until the record of trial is authenticated, the, military judge retains control over a court-martial and may reconsider prior, rulings).
The United States appeals the ruling of a military judge to dismiss three, specifications of indecent language, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of, Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. ยง 934, as unconstitutionally vague and, overbroad as applied to appellee., 535 U.S. 234, 255 (2002).
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BURTON, RODRIGUEZ, and FLEMING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee Vv. Staff Sergeant MICHAEL G. ADDESSO, II United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20190101 Headquarters, I Corps Lanny Acosta, Jr. and Jennifer Green, Military Judges Colonel Oren H. McKnelly, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Angela D. Swilley, JA; Captain Paul T. Shirk, JA. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Wayne H. Williams, JA. 9 December 2019 This opinion...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BURTON, RODRIGUEZ, and FLEMING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee Vv. Private E2 WILLIAM J. HELTON United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20190094 Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence Wendy P. Daknis, Military Judge Colonel Jackie L. Thompson, Jr., Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Colonel Elizabeth G. Marotta, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Tiffany D. Pond, JA; Captain Benjamin A. Accinelli, JA; Major Timothy G....
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before ALDYKIEWICZ, SALUSSOLIA, and WALKER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee Vv. Sergeant SHAWN M. ROGERS United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20190032 Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley Robert Shuck, Military Judge Lieutenant Colonel Alexander N. Pickands, Acting Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Major Kyle C. Sprague, JA; Captain Alexander N. Hess, JA. For Appellee: Colonel Steven P. Haight, JA; Lieutenant Colonel...
We conclude the military judge abused his discretion by accepting appellants, plea of guilty to the two novel Article 134 specifications., United States v. Murphy, 74 M.J. Most, importantly, we find the remaining offenses capture the gravamen of appellant's, criminal conduct.Clerk of Court
One of the specifications to which appellant agreed to plead guilty alleged he, was derelict in his duties as a UPL because, he willfully failed to deliver informed, prevention education and training to all Soldiers assigned to [appellants unit]. United States v. Schell, 72 M.J.
The defense counsel cited two cases from our, superior court, United States v. Greene, 68 M.J. In this case, however, the military judge erroneously rejected, appellants lawful and provident plea, and thus forced appellant to breach his lawful, pretrial agreement with the convening authority.
For Appellant: Captain Benjamin A. Accinelli, JA; Appellants pre-trial agreement limited confinement to one hundred, eighty days.LAW AND DISCUSSION, Article 19, UCMJ, limits forfeitures at a special court-martial to two-thirds, pay per month for a maximum period of twelve months.
MJ: Defense Counsel 1990) (acceptance of pretrial agreement to, unpreferred and unreferred charges constitutes the functional equivalent of an order, by the convening authority that the charges be referred to the court-martial for, trial) with United States v. Reese, 76 M.J.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BROOKHART, SALUSSOLIA, and SCHASBERGER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee Vv. Sergeant JEFFREY R. ARNOLD United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20180418 Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood G. Bret Batdorff, Military Judge Colonel Joseph M. Fairfield, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Tiffany D. Pond, JA; Major Timothy G. Burroughs, JA (on brief). For Appellee: Colonel Steven P. Haight, JA; Lieutenant Colonel...
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before ALDYKIEWICZ, SALUSSOLIA, and WALKER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Sergeant JESUS D. CARDENAS United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20180416 U.S. Army Military District of Washington James A. Ewing and Daniel G. Brookhart, Military Judges Colonel John P. Carrell, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Tiffany D. Pond, JA; Major Julie L. Borchers, JA; Captain James J. Berreth, JA (on brief); Lieutenant Colonel...
Rule for, Courts-Martial 307(c)(3).UCMJ, art. 120b(h)(5).4 See also United States v. Baker, 219 CCA LEXIS 165, at *4-5 (Army Ct.CONCLUSION, Having found that appellant was afforded both sufficient notice and protection, against future prosecutions, we find the specifications state offenses.
For Appellant: Colonel Elizabeth G. Marotta, JA; and (2) appellant provided both, EB and MR alcohol at the party.after conducting our independent review of the record, we conclude that appellants, convictions of Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge V are legally and factually, sufficient.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BURTON, RODRIGUEZ, and FLEMING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee Vv. Sergeant JOSHUA R. PRUETT United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20180368 Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley Robert L. Shuck, Military Judge Colonel Jerrett W. Dunlap, Jr., Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Tiffany D. Pond, JA; Major Angela D. Swilley, JA; Major William M. Grady, JA (on brief). For Appellee: Colonel Steven P....
