United States v. Arriaga
2011 CAAF LEXIS 346
C.A.A.F.2011Background
- Arriaga was convicted at a general court-martial of housebreaking as a lesser included offense of burglary and one specification of indecent assault, with a harsh four-year confinement and other punitive elements.
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reduced the confinement but left other aspects, and the case was reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals and this court.
- The incident involved Arriaga allegedly entering DC and JC’s dwelling at night, touching DC’s underwear, and penetrating with his fingers.
- Trial court instructed on housebreaking as a lesser included offense of burglary without objection, and Arriaga was found guilty of housebreaking but not guilty of burglary or aggravated sexual assault.
- Arriaga contends (i) housebreaking is not a lesser included offense of burglary under Jones, and (ii) he was denied speedy appellate review.
- The court holds that housebreaking is a lesser included offense of burglary and that Arriaga was denied timely post-trial review, warranting remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is housebreaking a lesser included offense of burglary? | Arriaga argues under Jones that housebreaking is not a lesser included offense of burglary. | The Government argues housebreaking is reasonably raised and a lesser included offense under Alston. | Yes; housebreaking is a lesser included offense of burglary. |
| Was Arriaga's right to speedy post-trial review violated by post-trial delay? | Arriaga asserts the 243-day delay deprived him of due process and caused oppression/anxiety. | Government contends delay was reasonable with no prejudice and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Yes; the delay violated due process and remand for relief was appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F.2010) (addresses lesser included offenses under the elements test)
- Alston, 69 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F.2010) (comparison of statutory elements allows lesser included offense analysis)
- Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.2006) (presumption of undue appellate delay triggers Barker analysis)
- Toohey, 63 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F.2006) (appellate delay and remedies; public perception considerations)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (framework for speedy trial/delay analysis)
- Rodriguez-Rivera, 63 M.J. 372 (C.A.A.F.2006) (appellate delay remedies and standards)