U.S. v. Fee, 50 M.J. 290

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Lawfulness of Sentence

1. in closely related cases, decision of Court of Criminal Appeals, finding a proper basis for differentiating appellant’s sentence, was not abuse of discretion or miscarriage of justice because different sentences were justified by appellant’s longer period of LSD offenses and appellant’s additional conviction for distribution of marijuana

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. responsibility for determining sentence appropriateness is vested by Article 66(c) in the Courts of Criminal Appeals

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

1. on issues of sentence appropriateness, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is limited to determining, as a matter of law, whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals constituted an abuse of discretion or a miscarriage of justice
2. on appeals involving closely related cases with highly disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may reverse Court of Criminal Appeals only in the absence of a rational basis for the differing sentences

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. on issues of sentence appropriateness, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is limited to determining, as a matter of law, whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals constituted an abuse of discretion or a miscarriage of justice

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. on appeals involving closely related cases with highly disparate sentences, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may reverse Court of Criminal Appeals only in the absence of a rational basis for the differing sentences