Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Slow news day

CAAF continues to keep its New Year's resolution of ensuring that the Daily Journal stays within one working day of being current. Not much of interest in today's crop other than a petition in the published Air Force case of United States v. Attucks, 64 M.J. 518 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006), which we previously discussed here. A petition had already been filed on 11 December in what strikes me as the more interesting case of United States v. Vieira, 64 M.J. 524 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006). A petition was filed on 14 November in the gambler's defense case of Untied States v. Falcon, __ M.J. ___, NMCCA No. 200401483 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 10 Oct 2006). And Pflueger wasted no time, filing his petition with CAAF two days after he lost at NMCCA. See Unites States v. Pflueger, __ M.J. ___, 2006 CCA LEXIS 328 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Dec. 2006).

I believe that leaves Tingler and Upham as the only appellants who lost in published CCA cases during FY 07 who have not yet filed a petition. See United States v. Tingler, __ M.J. ___, 2006 CCA LEXIS 329 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 14 Dec. 2006); United States v. Upham, __ M.J. ___, No. 1235, 2006 CCA LEXIS 331 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 20 Dec 2006).

While we are in recap mode, does anyone know whether Dearing was ever released from the USDB?

Also, I won't be at the Parker argument tomorrow. If any CAAFlog contributor or reader is there tomorrow, will you please post a review?

--Dwight Sullivan

2 comments:

Jason Grover said...

I often see cases discussed here that I was at least somewhat involved in from Appellate Defense, but I just realized, I prosecuted Tingler in Great Lakes years ago.

CAAFlog said...

Darn -- there appears to be only one mention on the TC in the Tingler opinion, and that mention is pretty innocuous:

There is one remaining question as to Specification 6. Even if the Swiderski holding is inapplicable or distinguishable, can the appellant be convicted of distribution of cocaine by sharing cocaine with FA Robbins after FA Robbins originally provided the cocaine to the appellant? The military judge recognized this issue, but was advised by both the trial defense counsel and the trial counsel that it was nonetheless a distribution. The appellant agreed that "technically there is a distribution." Record at 65. We agree with the parties that the appellant was properly convicted of distribution to FA Robbins after having received the cocaine from FA Robbins.

United States v. Tingler, __ M.J. ___, 2006 CCA LEXIS 329, at *17-*18 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006).