Court Opinion

ID: 7271478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-25 07:28:50.801281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:18:46.848305
License: Public Domain

CCA 20080559. Review granted on the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY APPELLANT AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS BY REFUSING TO DISMISS THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.
II. WHETHER THE COURT-MARTIAL HAD JURISDICTION OVER APPELLANT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2(a)(10), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
III. WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issues I and II only.