CAAF has granted review in a few cases over the past couple of weeks, and has received one certificate of review from the Army JAG.

First, CAAF granted review of a Fourth Amendment issue in United States v. Wicks, No 13-6004/AF, on July 31:

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING LAW ENFORCEMENT’S REPEATED WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF APPELLANT’S IPHONE DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

Next, the court received a certificate of review on August 5, in the Army “BAH fraud” case of United States v. Hines, No. 13-5010, (link to ACCA decision) specifying the following issues:

I.    WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLEE’S PLEAS TO SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, AND 3 OF CHARGE II WERE IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THEFT OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING AND FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE OCCURRING OVER MULTIPLE MONTHS “AMOUNTS TO A SEPARATE LARCENY EACH MONTH THE MONEY IS RECEIVED.”

II.   WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLEE’S PLEAS TO SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 3 OF CHARGE II WERE IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE “NEVER SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN [APPELLEE’S] PLEAS TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT [OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING] IN LIGHT OF HIS APPARENT ENTITLEMENT TO A LESSER AMOUNT.”

Also on August 5, CAAF granted review in three cases and ordered expedited briefing. First, another case involving Marine Corps military judge LtCol Palmer’s remarks (see our #8 Story of 2012):

No. 13-0408/MC.  U.S. v. Don W. BAILEY.  CCA 201200370.  Review granted on the following issue:

AN ACCUSED HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE.  APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED BY A MILITARY JUDGE WHO LATER STATED THAT DEFENDANTS ARE GUILTY, REFERRED TO DEFENDANTS AS SCUMBAGS, AND STATED THAT DEFENDANTS NEED TO BE CRUSHED.  WAS APPELLANT DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE?

Next, a case involving the application of Pierce credit (credit for prior nonjudicial punishment for the same offense):

No. 13-0459/AR.  U.S. v. Rollan D. MEAD.  CCA 20110717.  Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT INCORRECTLY RULED THAT PIERCE CREDIT MAY BE APPLIED AGAINST THE ADJUDGED SENTENCE WHERE THIS RESULTS IN NO RELIEF TO APPELLANT AND WHETHER THE ARMY COURT INCORRECTLY RULED THAT PAY LOST AS A RESULT OF PRIOR REDUCTION UNDER ARTICLE 15, UCMJ, NEED NOT BE RESTORED TO APPELLANT.

And finally, a case testing the limits of this term’s decisions in Spicer and Capel:

No. 13-0518/AF.  U.S. v. Jordan C. PASSUT.  CCA 37755.  Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER A STATEMENT MADE TO AN AAFES EMPLOYEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASHING A WORTHLESS CHECK SATISFIES THE “OFFICIAL” ELEMENT OF A FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT.

Comments are closed.