U.S. v. Rose, No. 05-0521-MC (C.A.A.F. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Ocean T. ROSE, Lance Corporal U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant No. 05-0521 Crim. App. No. 200101327 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Argued December 8, 2005 Decided September 27, 2006 PER CURIAM. CRAWFORD, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in the result. Counsel For Appellant: Lieutenant Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USNR (argued). For Appellee: Major Kevin C. Harris, USMC (argued); Commander Charles N. Purnell, JAGC, USN (on brief). Military Judge: Frank A. Delzompo This opinion is subject to revision before final publication. United States v. Rose, No. 05-0521/MC PER CURIAM: The petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was granted on the following issues: (1) (2) WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ADSORBED ON MARCH 29, 2000, WAS UNLAWFUL. WHETHER APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED.1 In light of this Court’s opinion in United States v. Kisala, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2006), we hold that the order directing Appellant to receive the anthrax vaccine was a lawful order which he disobeyed in violation of Article 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).2 Additionally, in light of our opinions in United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2006), this Court holds that even if Appellant was denied his due process right to speedy review and appeal, that error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and no relief is warranted. Accordingly, the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. 1 2 United States v. Rose, 61 M.J. 480 (C.A.A.F. 2005). 10 U.S.C. § 890 (2000). 2 United States v. Rose, No. 05-0521 CRAWFORD, Judge (concurring in the result): I agree with the affirmance of the findings and sentence. I dissociate myself, however, from this Court’s analysis of appellate delay. This Court’s analysis and conclusion are based on a prospective rule set forth in United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (citing United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006)), and its misapplication of the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), test. See Moreno, 63 M.J. at 144 (Crawford, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
