Tawakkol v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, Sex Offender Registration Bureau, et al., No. 1:19-CV-513-LY (W.D. Texas, March 29, 2022). Plaintiff was a USAFA cadet convicted at court-martial. "All three charges stemmed from attempted or actual violations of UCMJ Art. 120c(a)(2), Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting." "He was also convicted of one count of Invasive Visual Recording on March 27, 2018, in a Texas state-court proceeding. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.15(b). Tawakkol's conviction under Section 21.15(b) is not included in the definition of a "reportable conviction or adjudication" under Section 2 l. 15(b) for the purposes of the registration required by Texas law. Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. § 62.001(5)." Defendants argue that Tawakkol must register as a sex offender because he is an "extrajurisdictional registrant" under Texas law. An extrajurisdictional registrant is required to register as a sex offender in Texas. An extrajurisdictional registrant The judge then reviewed SORNA and DoD Instruction No. 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority, to determine if the classification of Tawakkol's convictions are properly listed or the classification is ultra vires and unenforceable. In reviewing the validity of a military law or regulation, the court gives "great deference to professional judgment of military authorities." See Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986); Or/off v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 (1953) ("Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters"). The Supreme Court has explained this deference: "the special relationships that define military life have 'supported the military establishment's power to deal with its own personnel' [because] 'courts are ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have." Chappell v. Wallace, 426 U.S. 296, 305 (1983) (quoting Earl Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 181, 188 (1962)). After discussing UCMJ art. 120c(a)(2), the judge concludes that, Article 1 20c(a)(2) cannot be considered an offense requiring sex offender-registration, at Prescott was convicted by members of attempted larceny and a false official statement; for which he was Dismissed. Appellant submitted a claim in the Defense Personal Property System (DPS)4 in excess of $32,000.00 for 168 items he claimed had been either damaged or were missing as a result of the move; Appellant received $16,309.22 for his claim.
Appellant raises the following issues (1) Legal and factual sufficiency. (2) Abuse of discretion by permitting the Government to offer evidence of Appellant’s 2011 household goods claim under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b). (3) Improper trial counsel argument on findings. (4) Sentence appropriateness. (5) Commander of Space Operations Command, United States Space Force, lacked jurisdiction to take action on Appellant’s sentence. (6) Do the charged victim’s subrogation and charge-back agreements with its agents render Appellant’s conviction for attempted larceny legally and factually insufficient. (7) Error by granting the Government’s challenge for cause against a court member. (8) The finding of guilty to attempted larceny was ambiguous. (9) The court-martial ceased to be properly convened when 14th Air Force—the convening command—was redesignated Space Operations Command. (10) Unreasonable post-trial delay. (11) The unanimity issue. Richard Luscombe, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be honoured with US navy ship named after her. The Guardian, April 1, 2022.
SECNAV Names Future Replenishment Oiler Ship Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dominguez-Sandoval "pled guilty to three specifications of cyber harassment, in violation of Subtitle 2, Part 5, Chapter 33, Section 4.1(a)(2), New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (N.J. Stat. § 2C:33–4.1), assimilated into federal law through" UCMJ art. 134(3). He was sentenced to 12 months, RiR, BCD, reprimand. He raised three issues, (1) whether his cyber-harassment convictions, which were based on New Jersey state law and assimilated into federal law, were barred by the specifically enumerated offense of indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ. (2) in the alternative, whether Appellant’s guilty pleas to the same convictions were improvident due to the military judge’s use of the Manual for Courts-Martial’s definition of “indecent[.]” (3) "[W]hether the “convictions were improvident” as Appellant’s language was not indecent when considered in the context of a pornographic website. Appellant argues the Government “could have, and should have” charged him with “the specifically enumerated offense of indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ,” instead of charging him with the New Jersey cyber-harassment offense, because the military judge focused on the indecent language used by Appellant during his providence inquiry. Under the assimilated New Jersey crime of cyber-harassment, Appellant faced a maximum confinement of 54 months, or 18 months for each specification. However, had Appellant been charged with indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ, he would have faced a maximum confinement of 18 months, or 6 months for each specification. The court concludes that, Applying the Lewis test, Appellant’s acts could have been charged under Article 134, UCMJ, Indecent language. However, we find the indecent language offense under Article 134 does not reveal an intent to eliminate an element as to exclude use of the New Jersey law. The New Jersey law does not interfere with the achievement of a federal policy, and it does not effectively rewrite an offense definition that Congress has already occupied. Thus, the Article 134 offense does not preclude application of the New Jersey law through assimilation. The findings and sentence were affirmed.
|
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -2024 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. CAAFlog 1.0 CAAFlog 2.0 Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|