United States v. Scott., ordering a Dubay hearing. I could not find a subsequent opinion on the ACCA website, which could mean the Dubay hearing produced nothing noteworthy and the court proceeded to affirm the findings and sentence.
CAAF has granted the following issue:
No. 19-0365/AR. U.S. v. Jason A. Scott. CCA 20170242. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
The ACCA initial opinion addresses:
Now on appeal, MAJ Scott assigns two errors. Major Scott claims his sentence is too severe given his over twenty years of good service. Based on the record introduced at trial, it is not too severe, and we find appellant’s dismissal to be an appropriate sentence. Major Scott also claims his defense counsel, Captain (CPT) JH and CPT MD, provided grossly ineffective assistance in preparing and conducting his sentencing case. Major Scott’s second claim has some merit. Perhaps unusually, the best evidence of counsels’ deficient performance is contained in the affidavits submitted by the government.
In the end, we are unable to fully resolve the claim of ineffective assistance on appeal without more information, and therefore remand the case for a fact-finding hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967).