Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Calloway. In September 2017, the Appellant pled guilty to  wrongful use of cocaine on divers occasions and wrongful use of 3,4-methylenediox- United States v. Calloway, No. ACM S32509 (f rev) 2 ymethamphetamine of and was sentenced to 30 days, 30 days HLWC, RiR-E-2, a BCD, and a reprimand.

At Calloway's first appearance AFCCA set aside the sentence. A rehearing being considered "impractical" a sentence of "no punishment" was approved.

On redocketing, the case was remanded again because, "the convening authority because the convening authority’s 4 May 2020 action purporting to approve the original findings was “not only erroneous and ultra vires, but confusing and misleading.”

On redocketing, there being no assignments of error and no specificied issues, the findings and sentence were affirmed.

United States v. Geier. Appellant pled guilty to wrongful use of controlled substances and dereliction of duty in vi 105 days and a BCD. He was sentenced in September 2020. The case was docketed with the court in January 2021 and was relatively quickly returned to correct post-trial errors. The Appellant had three assignments of error: (1) whether a plea agreement provision requiring the military judge to adjudge a bad-conduct discharge is legally permissible; (2) whether Appellant received adequate sentence relief for his pretrial confinement credit; and (3) whether his sentence is inappropriately severe.

In re D.D. Charges were preferred July 29, 2022.

United States v. Maurer. This is the fourth appearance at AFCCA the case having been remanded three times to correct post-trial errors. The findings and sentence are affirmed. The Appellant was sentenced in April 2019.

United States v. Pacheco. In a GP, the Appellant was convicted of  conspiracy to distribute marijuana, wrongful distribution of marijuana on divers occasions, and wrongful possession of marijuana. She was sentenced to effectively 45 days, RiR, and BCD. On appeal the sole issue is sentence appropriateness.

United States v. Mar involves a "waive all waiveable motions" provision in a PTA. Mar got himself 12 months, RiR, and a BCD in exchange for a GP "dereliction of duty, two specifications of wrongful use of marijuana, two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine, one specification of wrongful use of psilocybin mushrooms, one specification of wrongful use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), one specification of wrongful distribution of marijuana, one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, one specification of solicitation of distribution of ecstasy, and one specification of breaking restriction[.] Prior to trial the accused had been on restriction and later pretrial confinement. The court specified several issues.

In light of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 705(c)(1)(b), did the military judge err when she:
A. Failed to advise Appellant that his agreement to “waive all waivable motions” could not be enforced to prevent him from raising an R.C.M. 707 speedy trial motion;

B. Implied that “in order to get the benefit” of his pretrial agreement, Appellant had to “give up making these motions,” which included an R.C.M. 707 speedy trial motion; and

C. Advised Appellant that his failure to “waive all waivable motions,” implicitly including his R.C.M. 707 speedy trial motion, would result in the cancelation of his pretrial agreement? If so, is appellant entitled to relief?

Did Appellant receive ineffective assistance of counsel when trial defense counsel failed to seek relief for a potential violation of Appellant’s right to speedy trial under [R.C.M.] 707? If so, is Appellant entitled to relief?