The next CAAF daily journal update will have at least two — count ’em, two! — grants. Both are Army cases in which CAAF granted review and ordered briefs on Friday.
One is Medina, No. 07-0096/AR, in which the granted issue is:
WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN AMENDING SPECIFICATIONS 2 AND 3 OF CHARGE I FROM VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, CLAUSE 3 (CRIMES AND OFFENSES NOT CAPITAL) TO VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, CLAUSE 2 (SERVICE DISCREDITING CONDUCT) ADDS AN ELEMENT TO THE OFFENSES IN CONTRAVENTION OF APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), JONES v. UNITED STATES, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), AND SCHMUCK v. UNITED STATES, 489 U.S. 705 (1989).
The other is Parrish, in which the granted issue is:
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS FACTFINDING POWER UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, IN RESOLVING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED A MATERIAL TERM OF APPELLANT’S PRETRIAL AGREEMENT DESPITE CONFLICTING AFFIDAVITS.
The drought is finally over. No one will be more appeased than the No Man — the drought was ended with an Apprendi issue, no less!