In United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and United States v. Quigley, 35 M.J. 345 (C.M.A. 1992), the court set out a procedure to follow when an Appellant wants to raise and issue, but appellate counsel do not think it has merit for briefing.
During my time as deputy director at Navy Appellate Defense we did an informal study of Grostefon issues and found that the appellate court would from time to time find error and sometimes grant meaningful relief.
So when you begin reading United States v. McIntosh, ARMY 20120780 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 29 ay 2014), a Grosty case, you wonder what’s in store – the usual – some may say yes.
Appellant asserted that the prosecution failed to prove his possession of CP was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The ACCA agreed. But, in the typical pyrrhic way, the ACCA affirmed the finding based on sufficient evidence of service discredit, and affirmed the sentence.