From CAAF Daily Journal of 2 November.
No. 17-0507/AR. U.S. v. Orval W. Gould, Jr. CCA 20120727. On further consideration of Appellant’s certificate for review and the briefs of the parties, it is ordered that the first and second certified issues are answered in the negative, and therefore, no answer is provided to the third certified issue because to do so would require issuing an advisory opinion. The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
Here is the ACCA opinion in Gould. The case has a long and convoluted history.
This case has a long appellate history. Our court previously conducted an appellate review of this case pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ, affirming appellant’s conviction for production of child pornography in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, and only so much of the finding of guilty as to the Article 120, UCMJ, offense as provided that appellant committed the lesser-included offense of indecent act in violation of Article 120(k), UCMJ.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) subsequently reversed this court’s decision as to the production of child pornography charge (Specification 1 of Charge II) and the sentence, but affirmed the remaining findings of guilty as
affirmed by this court.
This court conducted further review of the production of child pornography charge pursuant to our superior court’s direction. A majority set aside the production of child pornography specification after viewing the non-nude images
anew and determining “we are not convinced that the images legally support the findings of guilt.”
We thereafter granted the government’s timely motion for reconsideration and we now revisit our decision.
No. 18-0016/MC. Kevin J. Delaney, Petitioner v. In their official capacities as appellate judges of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Colonel Kevin S. Woodard, USMC, Lead Judge; Commander Anne Marks, USN, Senior Judge; Commander Marcus Fulton, USN; et al. United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an immediate release from confinement and writ of mandamus to expedite appellate review of Petitioner’s case, it is ordered that the petition for extraordinary relief is hereby denied.