On Wednesday and Thursday CAAF summarily reversed and remanded 13 cases for further review in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. May 2, 2017) (CAAFlog case page). Full list after the jump.

No. 17-0282/AF. U.S. v. Michael R. Lightsey. CCA 38851. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0298/AR. U.S. v. Dwight D. Harris. CCA 20131045. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0333/AR. U.S. v. Arturo A. Tafoya. CCA 20140798. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0341/AR. U.S. v. Vincent P. Degregori III. CCA 20150581. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0381/AF. U.S. v. Corey J. Campbell. CCA 38875. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0395/AR. U.S. v. Noel G. Aguiar-Perez. CCA 20140715. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, bearing USCA Docket Number 17-0395/AR, it is ordered that so much of the order of this Court dated March 3, 2017 and relating to USCA Docket Number 17-0167/AR, which affirmed the remaining findings is hereby vacated. The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on the remaining findings is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 16-0716/AR. U.S. v. Manuel Ortiz III. CCA 20150267. On further consideration of the granted issue, 75 M.J. 494 (C.A.A.F. 2016), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0037/AF. U.S. v. Cory D. Phillips. CCA S38771. On further consideration of the granted issue, 76 M.J. 57 (C.A.A.F. 2017), and the briefs of the parties, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0084/AR. U.S. v. James N. Costigan. CCA 20150052. On further consideration of the granted issue, 76 M.J. 65 (C.A.A.F. 2017), and the briefs of the parties, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0087/AR. U.S. v. Jameson T. Hazelbower. CCA 20150335. On further consideration of the granted issue, 76 M.J. 63 (C.A.A.F. 2017), and the briefs of the parties, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0222/AF. U.S. v. Yogendra Rambharose. CCA 38769. On further consideration of the granted issue, 76 M.J. 262 (C.A.A.F. 2017), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0253/AR. U.S. v. Douglas E. Reynolds, Jr. CCA 20140856. On further consideration of the granted issue, 76 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2017), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

No. 17-0319/AR. U.S. v. Eric A. Ramos-Cruz. CCA 20150292. On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2017) (order granting review, May 10, 2017), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012), to evaluate the case in light of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.2017).

Leave a Reply