National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

The Tenth

12/9/2023

 

Gray v. Payne

In 2018, Gray pled guilty to allegations, including sexual assault of a child, sexual assault, sexual assault consummated by battery, assault, prejudice to good order and discipline, and failure to obey an order. The victim—his adopted stepdaughter—was between the ages of 13 and 16 when Gray sexually assaulted her. At age 16, she gave birth to Gray's biological daughter, as confirmed by DNA testing.

In exchange for Gray's plea, the Army agreed to dismiss without prejudice the remaining charges, which included rape of a child, sexual abuse, and additional sexual assault and assault charges. Those charges related to another adopted stepdaughter and the victim's mother. A military judge sentenced Gray to a reduction in rank, 44 years' confinement, and a dishonorable discharge with forfeiture of all pay and allowances. 
​​
His appeal to ACCA on IAC grounds failed and CAAF denied his petition.** He claimed defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him to plead guilty to offenses he did not commit, to agree to an incorrect stipulation of facts, and to lie during his providence inquiry with the military judge. In a shift from his previous statements, he insisted the sex with the victim was consensual and occurred only after her sixteenth birthday.

His pro se petition for habeas corpus followed. The Tenth Circuit denied his appeal of the district courts denial of his petition.
"Federal courts are empowered under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to entertain habeas petitions from military prisoners. But our review of court-martial proceedings is very limited." Santucci, 66 F.4th at 853 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. (describing the standard of review as "deferential" and noting that "the deference we give to military tribunals is even greater than that we owe to state courts" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

To determine whether merits review of a military habeas corpus petition is appropriate, we consider four factors as articulated in Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250, 1252-53 (10th Cir. 1990):

1. "The asserted error must be of substantial constitutional dimension."
2. "The issue must be one of law rather than of disputed fact already determined by the military tribunals."
3. There must be no "[m]ilitary considerations [that] warrant different treatment of constitutional claims."
4. "The military courts must give adequate consideration to the issues involved and apply proper legal standards."
The fourth factor is "the most important." Santucci, 66 F.4th at 858 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Santucci, we clarified that "as a necessary condition for full merits review of a given claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that the resolution of each of the Dodson factors weighs in the petitioner's favor." Only then can a petitioner "show that the military tribunals have not given full and fair consideration to [his] claim."
Gray's inability to satisfy the second and fourth factors of Dodson caused his petition to fail.
The district court found that the military courts adequately considered Gray's ineffective assistance claim. It highlighted the ACCA's efforts to supplement the record by requesting affidavits from Gray's counsel and concluded that the ACCA's opinion shows that it rejected the claim only after a complete record analysis—thus giving full and fair consideration to his claim.
Gray's claim that the district court should have granted discovery also failed.
​Gray's discovery motion sought a transcript of a phone call between another USDB inmate and the victim, during which the victim supposedly told the inmate that she did not want to testify but her mother made her do so. The district court found that he had not shown good cause for discovery because (1) "the alleged statement by the victim does not suggest that petitioner did not commit the crime," and (2) "the facts at issue in the discovery request do not bear on the Dodson factors that preclude . . . merits review."
** We have noted the potential change to Supreme Court direct appeal based on the recent conference committee draft of the NDA 2024. See Gray v. Payne, No. 23-3079, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32150, at *3 n.2 (10th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023).

Federal Court

10/14/2023

 

Anderson v. Garza

A habeas case in the ND of Ohio.

Read More

Update--United States v. Leon A. Brown

9/23/2022

 
A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of providing alcohol to minors on divers occasions; wrongfully distributing marijuana on divers occasions; wrongfully distributing psilocybin (mushrooms) on divers occasions; wrongfully using mushrooms on divers occasions; sexually assaulting a child, GB; behaving in a disgraceful and dishonorable manner that seriously compromised his standing as an officer by wrongfully and dishonorably organizing individuals into a violent gang; wrongfully communicating a threat to AL on divers occasions; wrongfully communicating to MH a threat to injure ME by paying someone to assault ME; receiving consideration for arranging for KW, PW, WK, and other unnamed persons to engage in sexual intercourse with others; unlawfully entering ML's house; sexually assaulting a child, FT; wrongfully threatening to hurt, injure, or kill Captain (Capt) CM; wrongfully threatening to hurt, injure, or kill Special Agent (SA) JG; and wrongfully threatening to hurt, injure, or kill Airman Basic (AB) JS, in violation of Articles 92, 112a, 120b, 133, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 912a, 920b, 933, 934.3 The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dismissal, confinement for 25 years, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The military judge credited Appellant with 60 days of pretrial confinement credit. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.

On appeal, Appellant argues that all of his convictions, except his provision of alcohol to minors, distribution of marijuana, mushroom use, and threats to AL, are legally and factually insufficient. Appellant also claims the Government failed to meet its discovery obligations; he was deprived his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at trial;6 the military judge erred in not granting additional sentencing credit for pretrial punishment Appellant suffered during a search of his pretrial confinement sleeping quarters; and post-trial delays in his case warrant meaningful relief.
​

We find there is insufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction of unlawful entry. We also find that Appellant was subjected to pretrial punishment in violation of Article 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813, and is, therefore, entitled to additional, modest confinement credit. We find no other prejudicial error, affirm the remaining findings, and reassess the sentence below.
United States v. Brown, No. ACM 38864, 2017 CCA LEXIS 454, at *1-3 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. July 6, 2017).

​CAAF ultimately denied his petition for review. 78 M.J. 162 (C.A.A.F. 2018). There being no avenue to the Supreme Court. Unlike every other system in the U.S., an intermediate court, the CAAF, acts as a gatekeeper. So off to federal district court went Brown with a habeas petition. He did not fair well in the Ninth. See Brown v. United States, No. 21-55727 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2022) (unpub.).
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 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.

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly