CAAF’s daily journal is catching up on the holiday. From December 20:

No. 13-5002/CG.  U.S. v. Wilson MEDINA.  CCA 1325. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issues:

I.    WHETHER THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY APPLYING THE PROVIDENCY REQUIREMENTS OF HARTMAN  IN A CASE WHERE THE FACTS ELICITED DURING THE PROVIDENCY INQUIRY REVEALED THAT THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY FELL OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS BOUNDED BY LAWRENCE v. TEXAS BECAUSE IT INVOLVED A RECENT, PRIOR TRAINER-TRAINEE RELATIONSHIP.

II.   ASSUMING A HARTMAN INQUIRY IS REQUIRED, WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE MILITARY JUDGE AND AN ACCUSED TO SUPPORT A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE SPECIFICATION OF SODOMY UNDER THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN HARTMAN.

We previously discussed Medina here, after the CGCCA set-aside a plea of guilty to consensual sodomy because:

The court unanimously agreed that under United States v. Hartman, 69 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 2011), the plea of guilty to consensual sodomy had to be set aside becuase the military judge didn’t adequately advise the accused about the zone of privacy recognized by Lawrence v. Texas and the Marcum factors that can overcome it in a military context.  The court split 2-1 on whether to order a new sentence hearing.  The majority opinion by Judge Duignan, joined by Chief Judge McClelland, remanded for a new sentence hearing.  In a separate opinion, Judge Havranek indicated he would have the court reassess the sentence rather than remand for a new sentencing hearing.

And Hartman (from the 2010 Term) is discussed here.

Comments are closed.