Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

In United States v. Novelli, the appellant pled guilty to various drug related offenses: cocaine, marijuana, psilocybin, Valium, Xanax, and steroids. He was sentenced to 600 days plus a BCD for which he got 236 days Allen credit. He raised four issues.

1. Error in the EoJ--corrected in the court's decretal paragraph.
2. Unreasonable multiplication.
3. Improper TC sentencing argument. (A common issue in AF cases as to both findings and sentence.)
4. Inappropriate sentence.

​The decretal paragraph remands the case for corrections of the EoJ.

In United States v. Monge, the appellant returns after correction of post-trial errors. Appellant had pled guilty to recording and distributing an indecent visual recording and use and possession of steroids. "Enlisted" members also convicted him of sexual assault and A&B. The panel sentenced him to 60 days HLWC and a DD.

The court now takes up legal and factual sufficiency for the sexual assault and A&B, and the Ramos issue (raised under Grosty). The analysis begins,

As the incidents that give rise to the criminal allegations occurred as one course of conduct, we will address the sexual assault and assault consummated by a battery specifications together. Notably, Appellant does not allege a lack of evidence for purposes of the sufficiency of the evidence. Instead, he argues that the named victim, RT, cannot be believed, going so far as referring to some of her testimony as a “blatant lie.” Appellant challenges RT’s credibility and argues that the version of events described by RT was physically improbable. And because her testimony cannot be trusted, Appellant continues, the sexual assault and assault consummated by a battery specifications fail a sufficiency review. As outlined below, we disagree. 

Essentially, the appellant was arguing to AFCCA that the victim should not be believed--a credibilty argument at the CCA. The court deconstructs each of the appellant's arguments paragraph by paragraph. And in addition, finds the mistake defense unreasonable on the facts. Reading the facts compared to the sentence, one wonders if the panel had some residual doubts.