United States v. Mizgala
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
61 M.J. 122 (2005)
Facts
Airman First Class Patrick A. Mizgala (defendant) was charged with larceny, attempted larceny, and other offenses. Mizgala was held in pretrial confinement because he was a flight risk and was likely to engage in further misconduct. While Mizgala was confined, the United States government (plaintiff) waited for the results of a drug test before preferring charges against him and waited for a release of jurisdiction from local civilian authorities concerning an attempt by Mizgala to steal beer. Mizgala was held in pretrial confinement for a total of 117 days, prompting him to file a motion to dismiss the charges against him for lack of a speedy trial pursuant to Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Mizgala argued neither that the conditions of his confinement had been harsh nor that his confinement had impaired his ability to prepare a defense. The military judge denied Mizgala’s motion to dismiss, and Mizgala entered unconditional guilty pleas to multiple charges. The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals found that Mizgala had waived consideration of his speedy-trial motion because he had entered a guilty plea. The court further found that even if Mizgala had not waived consideration of the issue, his Article 10 rights had not been violated. Mizgala appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Erdmann, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Crawford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
