Yesterday we noted NMCCA’s handling of Burch on remand (more about that later). Tonight we note ACCA’s even faster handling of Conliffe on remand.
On 7 January, CAAF knocked down a West Point cadet’s housebreaking conviction to an unlawful entry and authorized ACCA to reassess the sentence. United States v. Conliffe, 67 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F. 2009). We discussed that case here. The mandate in Conliffe didn’t issue until 2 February. Somehow, just 15 days later, ACCA issued this opinion in the case, reaffirming the original sentence. United States v. Conliffe, No. ARMY 20040721 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 2009)(per curiam). Does ACCA not allow appellate defense counsel to provide input in a situation like this? If not, that seems problematic.