CAAFlog » October 2018 Term » United States v. Harris

Audio of this week’s oral arguments before CAAF – at the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas, and at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas – is available on CAAF’s website at the following links:

United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (wma)(mp3)

United States v. Harris, No.18-0364/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (wma)(mp3)

The audio is also available on our oral argument audio podcast.

On Monday CAAF granted review in this Army case:

No. 18-0364/AR. U.S. v. Michael E. Harris. CCA 20170100. 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 granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED THE MILITARY JUDGE’S DENIAL OF 291 DAYS OF ALLEN CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT APPELLANT SERVED IN A CIVILIAN CONFINEMENT FACILITY AWAITING DISPOSITION OF STATE OFFENSES FOR WHICH HE WAS LATER COURT-MARTIALED.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

The appellant was charged with child pornography offenses by the State of Florida and released on bond. He then fled to Cambodia. He was eventually returned to Florida and confined pending trial, but Florida authorities dismissed the case because of witness issues. He was then ordered into pretrial confinement and ultimately pleaded guilty at a general court-martial composed of a military judge alone to wrongful possession of child pornography and desertion. The military judge, however, rejected his request for confinement credit for the time spent in custody in Florida.

Army CCA affirmed in a published decision, available here (78 M.J. 521). It concluded:

The state of Florida did not confine appellant until after he fled to Cambodia and failed to appear to face the Florida child pornography charges. Appellant was charged and placed in pre-trial confinement for the offense of fleeing Florida’s criminal process. The state of Florida was not acting on behalf of the Army and he was not being held in confinement at the request of the Army. The fact appellant’s confinement by the state of Florida exceeded his eventual sentence for the crime of failure to appear does not obligate the Federal government to lessen the appellant’s punishment for different offenses against the Federal sovereign.

78 M.J. at 525.