CAAFlog » October 2018 Term » United States v. Coleman

CAAF decided the Army case of United States v. Coleman, __ M.J. __, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on July 10, 2019. Reviewing for multiplicity in a case involving convictions of attempted murder (with a firearm) and of willfully discharging a firearm under circumstances to endanger human life, CAAF finds that the convictions are not multiplicious because each offense contains an element that the other does not.

Judge Ohlson writes for a unanimous court.

A general court-martial composed of a military judge alone convicted Private First Class (E-3) Coleman of numerous offenses, including one specification of attempted murder in violation of Article 80 (Specification 1 of Charge I), and one specification of willfully discharging a firearm under circumstances to endanger human life in violation of Article 134 (Specification of Charge VII). Both convictions related to Coleman firing a handgun at a car containing another soldier, that soldier’s fiancé, and the fiancé’s three-year old daughter. The Army CCA affirmed those convictions and CAAF granted review of a single issue:

Whether Specification 1 of Charge VII is multiplicious with Specification 1 of Charge I, as they are part of the same transaction.

Furthermore, when it granted review, CAAF specifically ordered that briefs be filed on only the issue of multiplicity and not on the related concept of unreasonable multiplication of charges (noted here).

Read more »

Audio of today’s oral arguments at CAAF is available on CAAF’s website at the following links:

United States v. Coleman, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (wma) (mp3)

United States v. Hyppolite, II., Nos.19-0119/AF & 19-0197/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (wma) (mp3)

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

This week at SCOTUS: A new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Cooper v. United States, No. 18-423, on May 13, 2019. In United States v. Cooper, 78 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 12, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a nearly-unanimous court found finds that the failure to request individual military defense counsel after a military judge discusses the right to make such a request with the accused is a knowing and intentional waiver of the right. The question presented in the petition is:

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exceeded its statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c) when it took action with respect to a matter of fact.

The petition asserts:

The CAAF reversed the lower court because it found Cooper knowingly and intelligently waived his right to IMC. (Pet. App. 4a, 16a.) But what a defendant knew or understood at any given moment in time is a historical fact: making a state of mind determination calls for a “recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S.99, 110 (1995) (internal quotations omitted).

The CAAF took action on a matter of fact—an authority specifically withheld from CAAF and provided to the NMCCA. Compare 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) with 10 U.S.C. §867(c). In exercising its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), the NMCCA found, as fact, that Cooper did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to IMC. Without so much as a declaration that this finding was clear error, the CAAF disagreed.

Pet at 12.

Additionally, the Solicitor General requested and has received an extension of time – until June 22, 2019 – to seek certiorari of CAAF’s decision in United States v. Briggs, 78 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 22, 2019) (CAAFlog case page).

Finally, the cert. petition in Hale was distributed for conference on May 30, 2019.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument infour cases this week:

Tuesday, May 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. English, No. 19-0050/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals can find the unlawful force, as alleged, factually insufficient and still affirm the finding based on a theory of criminality not presented at trial.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Navarette, No. 19-0066/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Army Court erroneously denied appellant a post-trial R.C.M. 706 inquiry by requiring a greater showing than a non-frivolous, good faith basis articulated by United States v. Nix, 15 C.M.A. 578, 582, 36 C.M.R 76, 80 (1965).
II. Whether the Army Court erred when it held that submitting matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), was evidence of Appellant’s competence during appellate proceedings.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Coleman, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether Specification 1 of Charge VII is multiplicious with Specification 1 of Charge I, as they are part of the same transaction.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Hyppolite, II., Nos.19-0119/AF & 19-0197/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted issue: Whether the military judge’s erroneous admission of evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 as a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5 was harmless.

Certified issue: Did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err when it found the military judge abused his discretion by ruling that the evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 could be considered as evidence of a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Blog post: JAG cross-certifies
Granted Issue: Appellant’s brief
Granted Issue: Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief (granted issue
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellee’s brief
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments. 

Yesterday CAAF granted review in this Army case:

No. 19-0087/AR. U.S. v. Deontray D. Coleman. CCA 20170013. 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 assigned issue:

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE VII IS MULTIPLICIOUS WITH SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE I, AS THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTION.

Briefs (on the issue of multiplicity and not unreasonable multiplication of charges) will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25.

The CCA’s opinion is available here but does not address the granted issue.