Opinion ID: 1351808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Armann's appeal to the ACCA

Text: On July 19, 2000, Armann appealed the court-martial judgment to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA). [1] Armann's principal brief presented three issues to the ACCA, alleging that Armann's conviction for possessing a firearm should be set aside because the applicable military regulations were not judicially noticed or accepted into evidence during the court-martial proceedings; the Military Judge erroneously attached a certain exhibit; and Armann's sentence was substantially disproportionate to his personal history. Aside from the principal brief's assertions, Armann personally raised two additional issues pursuant to the rule set forth in United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.1982), which were attached to the principal brief as an appendix. [2] In his Grostefon filing, Armann first argued that he lacked complete mental responsibility for the offenses. He stated that an affirmative defense exists where, at the time the offense is committed, a defendant is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. As evidence of his lack of mental responsibility, he referred to the various medications that the Mannheim facility administered to him to treat his mental issues as well as his childhood history of abuse. As for his second argument, Armann asserted that the attempted murder and conspiracy charges were multiplicious and the Military Judge should not have sentenced him separately for each. At no point in either Armann's principal brief or his Grostefon filing did he or his attorney raise the issue of whether Armann was mentally competent on March 19, 1999, the day of his plea and sentencing. On April 24, 2001, the ACCA affirmed the court-martial's judgment in a per curiam decision, stating that it had taken into consideration ... the entire record, including ... the issues personally specified by Armann.