United States v. Daly
2011 WL 1135850, 69 M.J. 485, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 250 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article 62(a)(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the 72-hour jurisdictional deadline for the government to file a notice of appeal begins to run from the original order terminating proceedings. A motion for reconsideration filed after this 72-hour period has expired does not toll or reset the deadline.
Facts:
- Daly, a member of the United States Coast Guard, engaged in romantic relationships with four of his subordinates.
- This conduct was contrary to a Coast Guard regulation detailed in the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A).
- The personnel manual specified that such conduct would subject a member to administrative resolution, not criminal sanctions.
- Despite the manual's language, Daly was criminally charged for his conduct under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Procedural Posture:
- Daly was charged in a military court-martial with violating Article 134, UCMJ.
- Before trial, the defense moved to dismiss the charges, arguing Daly lacked fair notice that his conduct was subject to criminal sanction.
- On March 5, 2010, the military judge granted the defense motion and dismissed the charge and specifications.
- Twelve days later, on March 17, 2010, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal.
- On March 26, 2010, the military judge denied the Government's motion.
- The Government (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal to the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) on March 29, 2010.
- The CCA denied the Government's appeal on the merits, effectively siding with Daly (Appellee).
- The Acting Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard certified the case for review to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a motion for reconsideration, filed more than 72 hours after a military judge dismisses charges, toll or reset the 72-hour statutory deadline for the government to file a notice of appeal under Article 62, UCMJ?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A motion for reconsideration filed after the 72-hour deadline has passed does not reset the clock for filing an appeal. The court reasoned that the language of Article 62(a)(2), UCMJ, establishes a clear and explicit jurisdictional limitation: the government must file its notice of appeal within 72 hours of the order that terminates the proceedings. The military judge's dismissal order on March 5th was such an order, and the 72-hour clock began then. The government failed to file either a notice of appeal or a motion for reconsideration within that period. Its motion for reconsideration, filed 12 days later, was untimely and could not revive the expired deadline to appeal the original dismissal. Because the government's notice of appeal was not timely filed, the appellate courts lack jurisdiction to hear the case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that statutory deadlines for filing appeals are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed. It clarifies for military practitioners that a motion for reconsideration does not automatically toll or restart the appeal clock, particularly when the motion itself is filed after the appeal window has already closed. The ruling serves as a strong cautionary tale for government counsel, emphasizing the need for immediate action—either filing an appeal or a timely motion for reconsideration—within the short 72-hour window provided by Article 62 to preserve appellate rights. Failure to adhere to this strict timeline divests appellate courts of the power to hear the appeal, regardless of the substantive merits of the case.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Daly