Friday, February 23, 2007

New published AFCCA case

United States v. Warden, __ M.J. ___, No. ACM S31029 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 23 Feb. 2007).

7 comments:

Fitzcarraldo said...

In light of how CAAFlog has cited the Air Force's Appellate Defense Division for uninformative issue framing from time to time, I'll note that our issue presented in Warden was "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE MEMBERS THAT THEY COULD ADJUDGE A BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE WHEN APPELLANT DID NOT ADMIT IN HER PROVIDENCY INQUIRY TO WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATING MORE THAN $500.00 ON ANY ONE OCCASION, THE MEMBERS NEVER FOUND THAT APPELLANT HAD WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED MORE THAN $500.00 ON ANY ONE OCCASION, AND TRIAL COUNSEL HAD AGREED WITH THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT THE MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED SENTENCE BASED SOLELY ON APPELLANT’S PROVIDENCY INQUIRY DID NOT INCLUDE A BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE." I characterized the military judge's ruling as a violation of Apprendi, Ring and Blakely, but the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to base its opinion on that line of precedent.

CAAFlog said...

Fitz,

BZ on the issue framing! (If you've read enough CAAFlog to have seen me dissing certain issues' framing, you've also read enough to know what "BZ" means.) But this whole hidden identity nom de plume thing doesn't work if you fess up to being counsel in a case that anyone can see just by clicking on a link. :-)

Guert Gansevoort said...

While I like the issue, it has been my experience that the C.A.A.F. changes deep issue statements if they are too lengthy. I second CAAFlog's thoughts on the name. While the average CCA judge will still not be able to out you, which may have been your intent, the rest of the world, including now famous Floridian probate judges, may be able to put it together.

Fitzcarraldo said...

Thanks! I figured that if I were going to "out" myself, this would be as good a time as any. :-)

Will CAAFlog be making an appearance at 450 E. St. NW this week? The Court is hosting back-to-back USAF doubleheaders: Carr & Erickson on Tuesday and Bare & Tippit on Wednesday.

CAAFlog said...

Sacre bleu! Tomorrow should be a fun day at CAAF -- the U-Haul case AND the Hitler/Osama Bin Laden/devil/going to hell argument case. To quote Ernie Banks, "Let's play two!"

CAAFlog said...

And how is it possible that the words "Apprendi," "Ring," and "Blakely" appeared in a comment more than nine hours ago and the No Man hasn't weighed in yet?

Jason Grover said...

I just listened to the CAAF argument in Schroder on 6 Feb 07. Did anybody catch the Apprendi/Blakely question by Chief Judge Effron to Mary Hall?