U.S. v. Douglas, 56 M.J. 168

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. Court of Criminal appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for an extension of time where: (1) the motion contained nothing more than a vague allegation that appellant wished to raise other issues and that appellant had not been able to discuss those issues with appellate counsel; (2) the motion did not identify those issues with specificity; and (3) there was no explanation why the issues were not raised in appellant’s original pleading
2. Court of Criminal Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration where: (1) new appellate defense counsel had ample time to communicate with appellant, gain a sufficient understanding of the issues, and prepare an appropriate filing for the court; (2) the motion for reconsideration was as vague as appellant’s initial motion for extension; (3) the motion did not articulate specific issues under United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982); and (4) the motion did not present a colorable claim that appellant’s right under Grostefon was not being protected

Trial Stages: Appeals: Grostefon

1. the generous protections afforded by United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), do not obviate normal rules of appellate practice
2. under United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), the burden is on appellant to file pleadings that articulate specific issues or to otherwise articulate a colorable claim that his rights under Grostefon are not being protected

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. at the appellate level, denial of a motion for extension of time is reviewed for an abuse of discretion