United States v. Leal.
United States v. Lancaster. Convicted by an 'enlisted panel' appellant was convicted of one specification of stealing military property and sentenced to 30 days, a BDC, a reduction, and a reprimand.
Appellant claims her trial defense counsel violated her right to autonomy in her defense by conceding her guilt at trial. Additionally, in matters submitted pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), appellant asserts her counsel were ineffective because they failed to comprehend the law relevant to her case. We disagree on both counts, and affirm the findings and sentence.
Methinks a little more to come on the concession of guilt by DC.
United States v. Stefanek. In this mixed plea MJA case appellant was sentenced to 24 months confinement, a BCD, and other stuff. Appellant pleaded guilty to one specification of absenting himself from his place of duty and one specification of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon into his place of work; he also was convicted, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of kidnapping. The appellant raised six issues.
At 0800, on 1 April 2019, Appellant’s supervisor and mentor, SB, sat at her office desk when Appellant came to see her carrying a long shipping box, a duffel bag, and a soda. SB was a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and the two had known each other for approximately eight months. Although Appellant’s voice was faint, SB heard him say, “Can we talk? If not, I’m going to kill myself,” or words to that effect. SB asked Appellant to repeat what he had just said, which he declined to do. SB asked Appellant to write “Do Not Disturb” on the whiteboard outside her door, and Appellant complied. Appellant then reentered SB’s office, closed the door, and locked the pushbutton knob on the inside of the door without being asked. As Appellant sat in a chair next to the door, SB then asked what was in the box, and Appellant told her he had a shotgun. SB asked to see it, and Appellant partially removed the gun from the box. SB did not know if it was loaded and had thoughts that she would not make it out of her office or see her family again. Appellant related that he would kill himself if she did not talk with him or if there were any interruptions. SB had a “long talk” with Appellant and did not feel free to leave even as she needed to use the restroom. During their conversation, SB attempted to contact others outside the office by asking for Appellant’s permission to contact MG, an NCO junior in grade to SB, who was scheduled to come to her office, and to tell him not to come. Appellant gave her his permission to contact MG. MG contacted SB on her cell phone, and SB was able to message him at 0809 to say that Appellant was in her office and had locked the door. This was the first time that she notified anyone that she was being held against her will because Appellant was “watching [her] every move,” and SB wanted to comply with his demands for no interruptions. MG immediately asked, via text message, if he should help or call someone. When SB did not respond, MG knocked on SB’s office door, but no one answered. MG realized the door was locked, so he went to find the first sergeant.
United States v. Smith, IV. Appellant was sentenced to two-years confinement, a BCD, and the rest by officer members, for involuntary manslaughter by striking with his car and one specification of negligent homicide (charged in the alternative). The military judge dismissed the negligent homicide for sentencing. Appellant raised six issues none of which warranted relief.
United States v. Caruso. In this GP case (conditional to preserve the cellphone issue), Appellant was sentenced to 24 months, a BCD, and RIR, for “one specification of conspiracy to wrongfully distribute a controlled substance, one specification of conspiracy to wrongfully introduce a controlled substance with intent to distribute, two specifications of wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, one specification of wrongful introduction of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and three specifications of wrongful use of a controlled substance[.]” He raised two issues,
This one seems worth a CAAF grant and reversal on the passcode issue.
United States v. Nelson. In the MJA GP case, Appellant was sentenced to 10 months, a BCD, and reduction, for violating a lawful general order, carrying a concealed weapon, transporting illegal aliens within the United States, and conspiring to transport illegal aliens within the United States. (One of a number of similar cases at the time.) On appeal he raised a multiplicity issue which the court correctly found waived by the PTA and plea. He ar The court head-nods to Chin, but finds that there is no multiplicity because one specification alleges a “registration requirement” crime and the other a “storage requirement” crime.
WORTH THE READ?
Jeff Schogol, Eddie Gallaher now says SEALs intended to kill unarmed fighter and 'nobody had a problem with it.' Task & Purpose, 4 May 2021. Some interesting twists and turns and new comments from one of his defense attorney's about what was or was not known at the time of trial.
CAAFlog 1.0 Archive
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Global MJ Reform
LOC Mil. Law Resources