U.S. v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Generally

1. at the Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that any cited cases are closely related to his or her case and that the sentences are highly disparate; if that burden is met, the government must show a rational basis for the disparity

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Lawfulness of Sentence

1. even though cases were closely related, sentences were not highly disparate where all adjudged sentences were relatively short in comparison to the authorized maximum period of confinement; disparity analysis is not limited to a narrow comparison of the relative numerical values of the sentences at issue

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. the power to review cases for sentence appropriateness is vested in the Courts of Criminal Appeals and their statutory discretion to determine whether a sentence “should be approved” under Article 66(c), UCMJ
2. in exercising discretionary authority to review sentence, Courts of Criminal Appeals are not required to engage in sentence comparison except in those rare instances in which sentence appropriateness can be fairly determined only by reference to disparate sentences adjudged in closely related cases

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. in reviewing actions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals on sentence appropriateness, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces review is limited to preventing obvious miscarriages of justice or abuses of discretion
2. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ review of Court of Criminal Appeals decision in cases alleging highly disparate sentences is limited to three questions of law: (1) whether the cases are “closely related”; (2) whether the cases resulted in “highly disparate” sentences; and (3) if relief was not granted in a closely related case involving highly disparate sentences, whether there is a rational basis for the differences between or among the cases

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. in reviewing actions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals on sentence appropriateness, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces review is limited to preventing obvious miscarriages of justice or abuses of discretion

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ review of Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in case alleging highly disparate sentences is limited to three questions of law: (1) whether the cases are “closely related”; (2) whether the cases resulted in “highly disparate” sentences; and (3) if relief was not granted in a closely related case involving highly disparate sentences, whether there is a rational basis for the differences between or among the cases

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. at the Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that any cited cases are closely related to his or her case and that the sentences are highly disparate; if that burden is met, the government must show a rational basis for the disparity