## Facts

- A Coast Guard petty officer was charged under Article 134, UCMJ, for alleged romantic relationships with four subordinates.
- Before trial, the Government amended the specifications by removing references to a Coast Guard regulation.
- On March 5, 2010, the military judge dismissed the charge and specifications for lack of due process “fair notice,” reasoning the relevant personnel manual treated such conduct as administratively, not criminally, actionable.
- On March 17, 2010, the Government moved for reconsideration of the dismissal.
- On March 26, 2010, the military judge denied reconsideration.
- On March 29, 2010, the Government filed written notice of an interlocutory appeal under Article 62, UCMJ.
- The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the appeal on the merits and denied relief.
- At the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the accused first argued the Government’s notice was untimely under Article 62’s 72-hour requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Government’s Article 62 notice of appeal was untimely because it was not filed within 72 hours of the military judge’s March 5, 2010 dismissal order.
2. Whether a Government motion for reconsideration filed after the 72-hour period can extend, toll, or restart the Article 62 filing deadline.
3. Whether untimeliness under Article 62 deprives military appellate courts of jurisdiction, even if the issue is raised for the first time on further review.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the Government’s Article 62 appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held the notice of appeal was untimely because it was not filed within 72 hours of the March 5, 2010 ruling being appealed.
- The court held a motion for reconsideration does not extend, toll, or restart the 72-hour period tied to the original order or ruling.
- The court held jurisdictional defects are not waived and may be raised at any time, including for the first time on review before the court.

## Legal Principles

- Article 62 and implementing rules require the Government to file written notice of appeal within 72 hours of the order or ruling it seeks to appeal.
- The 72-hour requirement for a Government interlocutory appeal under Article 62 is a jurisdictional prerequisite; failure to comply bars appellate review.
- A later ruling on a motion for reconsideration does not change the triggering event for the 72-hour filing period when the Government seeks to appeal the original ruling.
- Jurisdictional objections are reviewed de novo, are not subject to waiver, and may be raised at any stage of appellate proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Government’s failure to file an Article 62 notice of appeal within 72 hours of the military judge’s initial dismissal order eliminated appellate jurisdiction, and that a later reconsideration motion could not revive the expired statutory deadline.


United States v. Daly, 69 M.J. 485 (C.A.A.F. 2011)