United States v. Pereira. In this guilty plea case, the court took up an unreasonable multiplication issue. Appellant failed to meet a plain error analysis. The sentence of a dismissal and 30 days confinement was affirmed. [Corrected.]
United States v. Tobias. In this guilty plea case, the court held that there was insufficient foundation for a plea to larceny, but the pleas to an orders violation, a dereliction; and a false official statement were sufficient. After performing a sentence reassessment, the court found the sentence announced as appropriate.
United States v. Moore. The court set-aside Appellant's convictions of child sexual abuse, because the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements of the victim and her mother using prior recorded interviews. This is a Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i)(ii) case so is important reading for anyone trying an Article 120 case! As in some other cases we have seen, the Rule does not create a licence to admit everything, thus making the exception swallow the rule, and that care is to be taken on what is properly admissible for a non-hearsay purpose.
United States v. Jackman. This is a second visit to the court by Jackman, the record having first been sent back to correct defects in the record. Now the court addresses a now standard error in the post-trial action.
United States v. Michalec. The two significant issues relate to Mil. R. Evid. 414 and suppression of a cell phone search. I'll say no more.
United States v. Bauer. Somewhat like Michalec, one of the issues is suppression of an "electronic devices" search.
United States v. Corppetts. A post-trial action case quite common within the Air Force.
United States v. Lizana. He's back after a sentence rehearing when AFCCA had set-aside a sexual assault conviction for factual sufficiency but affirmed a LIO of abusive sexual contact. On rehearing he got basically the same punishment except no confinement. So effectively Appellant has served or is serving all his original sentence--he only got three-months confinement the first time.
United States v. Beavers. Appellant raised four assignments of error. The case is returned for post-trial error and the remaining AOEs were deferred until next time.
(Is there a system-wide problem?)
United States v. Hickman. Was the evidence factually sufficient, was the record complete; and was there some post-trial processing error? No.
PENDING APPELLATE CASES
United States v. DeDolph, tried at Naval Operating Base, VA, resulted in a sentence including 10 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. (See here for more robust information on the underlying allegations.)
DeDolph had pleaded guilty earlier this month to involuntary manslaughter in the strangulation death of Army Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar, a Special Forces soldier assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group. DeDolph also pleaded guilty to hazing, conspiracy and obstruction of justice for trying to cover up the cause of Melgar's death.
Thomas L. Hudson, Structuring Appellate Briefs. 21 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 85 (2021).
CAAFlog 1.0 Archive
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Global MJ Reform
LOC Mil. Law Resources