CAAF today granted review of this issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER DISAPPROVING THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY FOR CHARGE IV AND ITS SPECIFICATIONS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THIS HONORABLE COURT’S DECISION DISMISSING SPECIFICATION 3 OF CHARGE III, ERRED BY REASSESSING APPELLANT’S SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT, FIRST FROM 31 YEARS TO 20 YEARS (IN THEIR INITIAL DECISION), AND THEN FROM 20 YEARS TO 11 YEARS (IN A SUBSEQUENT DECISION), RATHER THAN DIRECTING A SENTENCE REHEARING.

United States v. Winckelmann, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0280/AR (Apr. 17, 2013).

CAAF granted review of this issue in a Marine Corps case and, surprisingly, ordered briefs:  “WHETHER THE TWO ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATIONS UNDER CHARGE III ARE PREJUDICIALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALLEGE, EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, THE TERMINAL ELEMENT.”  United States v. McGuire, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0428/MC (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2013).

CAAF also granted review in this Marine Corps but didn’t order briefing:

WHETHER, UNDER THIS COURT’S DECISIONS IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011), UNITED STATES v. BALLAN, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012), AND UNITED STATES v. HUMPHRIES, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), APPELLANT SUFFERED MATERIAL PREJUDICE TO A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED UNDER TWO ADULTERY SPECIFICATIONS THAT FAILED TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

United States v. Lonsford, __ M.J. __, 12-0448/MC (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2013).

Comments are closed.