Opinion ID: 1351808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Armann's appeal to the CAAF

Text: On May 22, 2001, Armann filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). [3] On October 11, 2001, in support of the petition for review, he filed a supplement in which he asserted the same three arguments previously raised in his principal brief to the ACCA. As with the ACCA proceedings, Armann once more exercised his Grostefon rights, personally raising issues apart from the principal brief's arguments, which again were attached as an appendix. However, among other issues raised, Armann for the first time asserted that he was mentally incompetent at the time of plea and sentencing due to the medications he had taken that day and that the Military Judge improperly accepted the guilty plea ... without first inquiring into the medication that was prescribed to him. [4] In addition to his petition for review, Armann filed a petition for new trial in which he asserted there was newly discovered evidence about Accutane, a drug he had taken in the past. [5] On October 19, 2001, the Government filed a letter with the CAAF clerk's office that addressed both the petition for review and the petition for new trial. [6] First, addressing Armann's petition for review, the Government indicated it would not be submitting a formal reply to Armann's supplement to the petition. Rather, the letter stated, the Government opposed the CAAF's granting the petition for review and would rely on the same briefs it filed with the ACCA, which the Government attached to the letter. The Government acknowledged Armann's new Grostefon submission, which raised the mental competency issues. It stated, though, that it opposed the CAAF reviewing these issues, absent good cause suggesting why the claims were being raised at this juncture. Second, the Government addressed Armann's petition for new trial by noting that it would respond to the newly discovered evidence issue at a later time. On November 15, 2001, Armann filed a brief in support of his petition for new trial, in which he argued that there was good cause for a new trial based on newly discovered psychotic effects of Accutane. Specifically, Armann argued that this newly discovered evidence called into question whether he was competent to stand trial and whether he was able to appreciat[e] the wrongfulness of his actions at the time he committed the offenses. Armann filed a motion to attach eighteen exhibits, which included documents in support of Accutane's adverse effects. One of the exhibits was Armann's Statement and Verification Signed by Kurtis E. Armann (November 8, 2001), a document in which he argued that the newly discovered effects of Accutane called into question whether he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct, and more importantly whether or not he was competent to stand trial. He also drew attention to the combination of drugs he had taken on March 19, 1999, the day of his plea and sentencing, listing the various effects such drugs could cause and stating the combination could have easily put [him] into the range of toxic exposure. (App. 1085 (emphasis omitted)). The Government opposed Armann's motion to attach portions of his Statement and Verification as well as miscellaneous medical records. In particular, it asserted that Armann's argument that he was involuntary intoxicated during his guilty plea trial due to the medications he had taken was not the issue before the CAAF in Armann's new trial petition. Also, in a footnote, the Government noted that it had reviewed his Grostefon claim in the new trial petition and concluded that the claim lacks merit. On December 17, 2001, as promised by its prior letter to the CAAF, the Government filed a brief in response to Armann's petition for new trial. It argued that Accutane's effects were known at the time of trial and were discoverable with due diligence. Also, the Government noted again, as it had before in its letter, its conclusion that Armann's Grostefon claims all lack merit. It added, though, that if the CAAF determine[d] that the issues raised by [Armann] ha[d] possible merit, the Government request[ed] an opportunity to submit further pleadings thereon. On January 7, 2002, the CAAF ruled on Armann's motion to attach exhibits to his petition for new trial. It granted his motion to attach his Statement and Verification, which included his competency arguments, but denied his motion for the other exhibits, one of which included the medical logs from the Mannheim facility. On July 24, 2002, the CAAF ruled on both of Armann's petitions, summarily granting his petition for review, affirming the ACCA's decision, and denying his petition for new trial. The CAAF did not issue an opinion stating its reasoning for affirming the ACCA or denying Armann's petition for new trial. Rather, the order contained one sentence: On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and the petition for new trial, it is, by the Court, this 24th day of July, 2002, ORDERED: That said petition is hereby granted; That the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed; and, That the petition for new trial is denied. (App. 1120).