Yesterday CAAF granted review of two issues in a Marine Corps case:

No. 15-0172/MC. U.S. v. Francis L. Captain. CCA 201300137. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues specified by the Court:

I.    WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILING TO OFFER EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN AN UNSWORN STATEMENT, IN EXTENUATION OR MITIGATION AND BY CONCEDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.

II.   WHETHER THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT INCLUDED A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE WHEN THE CONVENING AUTHORITY’S ACTION DID NOT APPROVE ONE.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

The NMCCA’s opinion is available here.

Other recent IAC cases on CAAF’s docket include:

  • United States v. Spurling, __ M.J. __, No. 15-0228/MC (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2015) (summary disp.) (discussed here).
  • United States v. McIntosh, No. 14-0685/AF (rev. granted Jan. 15, 2015) (discussed here).
  • United States v. Engler, __ M.J. __, No. 15-0077/MC (C.A.A.F. Dec. 3, 2014) (summary disp.) (discussed here).

10 Responses to “CAAF grant of IAC issue”

  1. (Former) ArmyTC says:

    What the…I thought that the defense was never allowed to argue for a dishonorable discharge? Am I making that up? I’m not near a platform where I can research this…

  2. DCGoneGalt says:

    (Former) ArmyTC:  I am not aware of a prohibition, although I never had a case where I would have conceded it.  And I must say, I am one of the most reasonable people I know.  (joking, I am generally a pain in the a$$)  I can think of cases where I would want to argue it, i.e. murder where you are trying to avoid life w/o parole but if it was argued I would would have an iron-clad client consent CYA memo for IAC purposes (preferably on camera and notarized by the defense paralegal!).
     
    Think of it like self-love on an airplane . . . it is not illegal it is just frowned upon. (Hangover reference)

  3. afjagcapt says:

    Defense can argue for a punitive sep, but it is supposed to be articulated (and documented) that the ACC desires that COA; sounds like someone got sloppy with their CYA paperwork. And sounds the GCMCA/SJA had similar issues with the action.

  4. stewie says:

    Thanks a lot Bin Laden!  I can see arguing for a DD in certain situations, and this seems like one of them, client wants minimal jail time and doesn’t care about DD.  Of course, as always, the moment you don’t lock them into that choice, they pretend on appeal they care greatly about getting a DD.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    Someone got to get their Blunk letter apparently.
     
    See United States v Blunk, 17 USCMA 158, 160, 37 CMR 422 (1967).

  6. Phil Cave says:

    @Former Amry TC
     
    In the Navy we used to call it BCD-Striking.
     
    http://www.court-martial-ucmj.com/uncategorized/sergeant-captain-may-have-some-major-issues/

  7. DCGoneGalt says:

    I am surprised Silver Fox hasn’t commented on this post not being entitled: “IAC Allegation!!!  Defense counsel program faces a crisis!!!”

  8. The Silver Fox says:

    Easy, Silver Fox fans.  I’m on vacation.

  9. DCGoneGalt says:

    That’s fine, I guess.  I’m not mad at you, I’m just disappointed in you.

  10. Defense Counsel says:

    This is interesting. In the few times where a punitive discharge was requested, the MJ stopped the proceedings and questioned the accused if that was what they wanted.